Skip to main content

Full text of "Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of Chaco Canyon: Analyses of Artifacts from the Chaco Project, Volume II: Lithics and Ornaments"

See other formats


*9.59: 18 G/V.3 



PPUBLIC ' 
DEPC 



SEP 2 6 1997 




CLEMSON 
LIBRARY 



i EDERAL 
PI BLICATION 



Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of 



Chaco Canyon 




Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/ceramicslithicso03math 



Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of 

Chaco Canyon 

Analyses of Artifacts from the Chaco Project 

1971-1978 

Volume III. Lithics and Ornaments 



edited by 
Frances Joan Mathien 



Publications in Archeology 18G 
Chaco Canyon Studies 

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 

1997 



Contents 

LIST OF TABLES xi 

LIST OF FIGURES xxiii 

FOREWORD xxxi 

PREFACE xxxiii 

VOLUME I. 

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ARTIFACT ANALYSES by Frances Joan Mathien 1 

Background 1 

This Volume 9 

References 13 

2. CHACO CERAMICS by H. Wolcott Toll and Peter J. McKenna 17 

Introduction 17 

Chaco Project Ceramic Sample 17 

Type Descriptions 32 

Types as Temporal Control 32 

Type Definitions 32 

Vessel Form Assemblages 49 

Open Forms 49 

Closed Forms 50 

Other Forms 70 

Detailed Analysis: Temper and Paste Studies 73 

Objectives . 73 

Background and Epistemology 74 

Temper Descriptions 76 

Other Paste Variables 110 

Clay Studies 114 

Ceramic Import to Chaco Canyon 118 

Time Placements 119 

Definition of Import: Conservatively 123 

More Liberal Estimates: The Sandstone Aspect 138 



in 



Site Group Comparisons 138 

The Distribution of Trachyte Temper in the San Juan Basin 149 

Ceramic Production in the Chaco System 152 

Methods of Manufacture 152 

Evidence for Ceramic Production in Chaco 155 

Standardization and Specialization: Analyses 164 

Broad -based Ceramic Shifts and their Relevance to Specialization 205 

Costumbre 211 

Pottery and Interaction in the Chaco World 214 

Appendix 2A: Ceramic Group Definitions 216 

Graywares 218 

Lino Gray 218 

Lino Fugitive Red 218 

Polished Tan Gray (Obelisk Gray) 226 

Wide Neckbanded 230 

Narrow Neckbanded 235 

Neck Corrugated 239 

Pueblo H (PII) Corrugated 245 

Pueblo II-Pueblo III (PII-PIII) Corrugated 250 

Pueblo III (PIII) Corrugated 254 

Unidentified Corrugated 258 

Whitewares 262 

Mineral-on-white types 262 

Unpolished Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I (BMIII-PI) Mineral-on-white 262 

Polished Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I (BMIII-PI) Mineral-on-white 270 

Early Red Mesa Black-on-white 278 

Red Mesa Black-on-white 286 

Puerco Black-on-white 298 

Escavada Black-on-white 306 

Gallup Black-on-white 313 

Puesga Black-on-white 325 

Chaco Black-on-white 334 

Exotic Mineral-on-white 340 

Pueblo Il-ni (PII-III) Mineral-on-white 352 

Unidentified Whitewares 359 

Carbon-on-white types 365 

Unpolished Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I (BMIII-PI) Carbon-on-white 365 

Polished Basketmaker Hi-Pueblo I (BMIII-PI) Carbon-on-white 370 

Pueblo II-Pueblo III (PII-PIII) Carbon-on-white 377 

Chaco McElmo Black-on- white 384 

Mesa Verde Black-on-white 392 

Tusayan Carbon-on-white 397 

Chuska Black-on-white 402 

Chuska Carbon-on-white 406 

Chuska Carbon-on-white with Red Mesa design 411 

Redwares 416 

Black-on-red 416 



IV 



Polychrome 434 

Plain Red 435 

Brownwares 436 

Polished Smudged 436 

Other (Exotic) Brownwares 441 

Appendix 2B: Chaco Project Ceramic Analysis Coding Keys 444 

Appendix 2C: Clay Sample Data .....-..' 471 

Appendix 2D: Statistics 510 

References 512 



VOLUME II. 



3. THE CHIPPED STONE OF CHACO CANYON, NEW MEXICO 

by Catherine M. Cameron 531 

Introduction 531 

Research Goals 531 

Analyses 532 

Sites/Sampling Biases 534 

The Time-Space Matrix ' 534 

Analytical Dimensions 539 

Materials 539 

Technology 541 

Procedures 543 

Material Selection 543 

Temporal Patterning 545 

Typological Variation 553 

Utilized and Unutilized Debitage 553 

Cores 556 

Formal Tools 557 

Assemblages 577 

Introduction 577 

Material Type Assemblages 577 

Artifact Type Assemblages 581 

Classification of Material Type Assemblages 582 

Classification of Artifact Type Assemblages 589 

Unusual Proveniences 592 

Site 29SJ 423 592 

Site 29SJ 629 596 

Site 29SJ 389 596 

Site 29SJ 1659 596 

Chipped Stone Analysis in a Regional Perspective 596 

Regional Patterns of Exotic Material Acquisition 597 

Quantity of Imported Chipped Stone Material 601 

Consumption of Chipped Stone 601 

Differential Access to Chipped Stone at 



Small-house Sites 602 

Formal and Technological Evidence for Craft Specialization 603 

Summary 604 

References 605 

Appendix 3A: Petrographic Description and Sources of Chipped Stone Artifacts 

in Chaco Canyon by David W. Love 610 

Introduction 610 

Procedures 610 

Depositional History and Landscape Evolution in the Area Adjacent 

to Chaco Canyon 610 

Local Sources of Chipped Stone Artifacts 622 

Non-local Sources of Lithics of Chipped Stone Artifacts 625 

References 629 

Appendix 3B: Description of Chaco Project's Lithic Types Collected by A. Helene 

Warren by David W. Love 634 

Appendix 3C: Cores by Catherine M. Cameron 643 

Description of Attributes 643 

Material Comparisons 643 

Dimensions 643 

Form 644 

Presence of Cortex 644 

Technological Attributes 649 

Temporal Distribution 649 

Spatial Variability 658 

Summary 658 

Reference 658 



4. POINTS, KNIVES, AND DRILLS OF CHACO CANYON 

by Stephen H. Lekson 659 

Introduction 659 

The Collection 659 

The Analysis 661 

Arrow Points 662 

Knives 680 

Drills and Perforators 687 

Miscellaneous Artifacts 691 

Chipped Stone Tools and the "Chaco Phenomenon" 691 

References 695 

Appendix 4A: General Observations of Flaked Stone Technology by Bruce A. Bradley . . . 698 

Primary Technology 698 

Secondary Technology 698 

Other Comments 699 



VI 



THE ABRADERS OF CHACO CANYON: AN ANALYSIS OF THEIR FORM 

AND FUNCTION by Nancy J. Akins 701 

Introduction 701 

The Random Sample 702 

The Final Analysis Format 702 

The Analysis 705 

Active Abraders 705 

Type 10: Active Abraders 707 

Type 10: Soft Active Abraders 707 

Type 10: Hard Active Abraders 716 

Type 11: Faceted Active Abraders 725 

Type 12: Active Lapidary Abraders 733 

Type 13: Manolike Abraders 733 

Type 14: Stones Abraded for Pigment 741 

Type 15: Paint Grinders 748 

Type 16: Edge Abraders 753 

Type 17: Cornbreaker Abrader 755 

Type 18: An Unusual Abrader Rock 757 

Type 19: Abrader-anvils 759 

Passive Abraders 759 

Type 20: Passive Abraders 763 

Types 21 and 51: Passive Abrader-anvil Combinations 773 

Type 22: Passive Lapidary Abraders 773 

Type 23: Whetstones 792 

Type 24: Mortars, Type 25: Pecked-hole Abraders 

and Type 29: Paint Mortars 792 

Type 26: Undifferentiated Palettes 796 

Type 27: Raised Bordered Palettes 796 

Type 28: Incidental Palettes 799 

Grooved Abraders 801 

Type 30: Undifferentiated Grooved Abraders 801 

Type 31: Shaft Shapers 808 

Type 32: Decorative Grooved Rocks 810 

Type 33: Point Sharpeners 812 

Polishing Stones 812 

Type 40: Undifferentiated Polishers 812 

Type 41: Probable Pot Polishers 819 

Type 42: Large Polishers 823 

Type 43: Broken Edge Polishers 830 

Type 44: "Lightning Stones" 830 

Anvils 834 

Type 50: Undifferentiated Anvils 834 

Type 52: Anvil-abraders 834 

General Site Information 841 

The Sites 851 

29SJ 299 856 

Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389) 856 

Rabbit Ruin (29SJ 390) 882 



vn 



Una Vida (29SJ 391) 882 

29SJ 423 887 

29SJ 627 890 

29SJ 628 909 

29SJ 629 914 

29SJ 633 922 

29SJ 721 922 

29SJ 724 927 

29SJ 1360 927 

Shabik'eshchee Village (29SJ 1659) 934 

References 935 

Appendix 5A: Abrader Random Sample Format 938 

Appendix 5B: Abrader Analysis Format 942 

Appendix 5C: Material and Artifact Types from the Inventory 945 



VOLUME HI. 



6. A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF HAMMERSTONES FROM CHACO CANYON, 

NEW MEXICO by W. H. Wills 947 

Preface 947 

Introduction 947 

Variables 948 

Classification 949 

Function 961 

Source Areas 964 

Temporal Variation 964 

Spatial Distribution 967 

Conclusions 972 

References 972 

Appendix 6A: Hammerstone Analysis Form 975 



7. AN ANALYSIS OF AXES AND MAULS FROM CHACO CANYON, NEW 

MEXICO by Cory Dale Breternitz 977 

Introduction 977 

The Sample 980 

29SJ 627 980 

29SJ 628 980 

29SJ 629 989 

29SJ 1360 989 

29SJ 721 989 

29SJ 724 989 

viii 



29SJ 390 (Rabbit Ruin) 989 

29SJ 389 (Pueblo Alto) 990 

Discussion 990 

Summary of All Axes and Mauls Reported from Chaco Canyon 990 

Discussion 992 

References 994 



8. AN ANALYSIS OF MANOS FROM CHACO CANYON, NEW MEXICO 

by Catherine M. Cameron 997 

Introduction 997 

The Sample 997 

Selection of Manos for Analysis 997 

Association of Manos with Other Ground Stone Types 997 

The Analysis 998 

Mano Types 998 

Material Type 999 

Technology of Manufacture 999 

Form 999 

Mano Use 1001 

Reuse 1003 

Temporal Variability in Cross-section Types 1003 

Mano Use-life 1006 

Greathouses and Small-house Sites 1006 

Conclusions 1008 

References 1008 

Appendix 8A: Mano Analysis Form 1010 



9. THE METATES OF CHACO CANYON, NEW MEXICO 

by John D. Schelberg 1013 

Background 1013 

Research Orientation 1014 

Terminology 1018 

Change in Morphology 1020 

The Analysis 1025 

Variables Recorded 1026 

Metates— The Beginning 1029 

Metates— The Use 1042 

Metates— The End 1065 

Conclusions 1074 

Appendix 9A: Review of Published Literature 1077 

Chaco Canyon Sites 1077 

Chacoan Outliers 1082 

ix 



The Mesa Verde Area 1085 

The Mogollon Region 1087 

Appendix 9B: Metate Matches 1088 

Appendix 9C: Intermediate Metate Analysis Form 1094 

Appendix 9D: Final Metate Analysis Form 1097 

Appendix 9E: Grinding Surface Area 1101 

Appendix 9F: Metate Fragments 1104 

References 1115 



10. ORNAMENTS OF THE CHACO ANASAZI by Frances Joan Mathien 1119 

Methods 1120 

Material Identification 1120 

Source Area Identification 1 123 

Assignment of General Procurement Areas 1130 

Assignment to Time 1 130 

Artifact Classes 1 130 

Results 1131 

Archaic-Basketmaker II (pre A.D. 500) 1131 

Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I 1 143 

The Bonito Phase 1 157 

The Mesa Verde Phase 1191 

Discussion 1199 

Materials— Types and Sources 1 199 

Jewelry-making— Technology, Location, and Personnel 1204 

Social Organization 1205 

References 1207 



11. INFERENCES FROM THE DATA by Frances Joan Mathien 1221 

Review 1221 

Imports 1221 

Material Types and Functions 1223 

Tool Kits 1225 

Craft Specialization 1227 

Distribution and Consumption 1229 

Discussion 1230 

Seasonality 1230 

Population Estimates 1231 

Socio-political Complexity 1231 

References 1232 



INDEX 1237 



List of Tables 



VOLUME I. 



INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Sites tested and excavated during the NPS Chaco Project or by Chaco Project 

personnel and other cultural resource managers 5 

1.2. Sites analyzed in the following chapters 7 

1.3. Chronology of chapters included in this volume 9 

1.4. Bonito Phase ceramic assemblages in Chaco Canyon: A.D. 900-1140 10 

1.5. Ceramic typological time in Chaco Canyon 11 



CERAMICS 

2.1. Bulk counts by rough sort type for all sites in the Chaco Project analysis 18 

2.2. Percentages of rough sort type bulk counts found at each Chaco Project site 20 

2.3 Detailed analysis sample composition, showing sherd type occurrence within types 23 

2.4 Detailed analysis sample distribution across sites showing the percentage of each 
site-type group represents of the total site bulk count, the detailed sample, and the 

total detailed sample for that type 24 

2.5 Occurrence of ceramic types in time groups, detailed analysis sample 33 

2.6. Ware by time group 39 

2.7. Whiteware paint by time group 40 

2.8. Paint by vitrification 40 

2.9. Specific hachure element occurrence in primary hachured types. Percent of total 

painted elements 45 

2.10. Hachure occurrence as a percentage of total number of recorded painted motifs 46 

2.11. Hachure occurrence by time 47 

2.12. Forms by hachure type 50 

2.13. Detailed analysis distribution of vessel forms by site 51 

2.14. Distribution of vessel forms by types for detailed analysis sample 53 

2. 15. Chaco forms by time group 55 

2.16. Exterior decoration on bowls 60 

2.17. Occurrence of fugitive red 61 

2.18. Chaco handles through time 63 

2.19. All handle types by ware 72 

2.20. Whole vessel measurements and correlations for five abundant ware-form categories .... 74 

2.21. Sites analyzed in detailed ceramic analysis 77 

2.22. Type counts analyzed by temper systems 78 

2.23. Sites analyzed by system as part of the detailed ceramic analysis 79 

xi 



2.24. Distribution of temper by site 80 

2.25. Distribution of type by temper for entire temper analysis sample 81 

2.26. Distribution of form by temper for entire analysis sample 83 

2.27. Ware distributions in major temper groups by percent 84 

2.28. Form distributions in major temper groups by percent 84 

2.29. Sandstone temper co-occurrences with sandstone broken down into fine-medium 

and coarse sand grain size and greater than and less than half sherd temper groups 86 

2.30. Occurrence of sandstone temper subdivisions by major type 87 

2.31. Vessel forms of sandstone temper subdivisions 88 

2.32. Sandstone temper co-occurrence with other paste attributes 89 

2.33. Sandstone temper site occurrence as a percent of each site's total temper sample 90 

2.34. Type distribution of recorded sandstone formation temper from sites 29SJ 724, 

29SJ 299-PI, 29SJ 628, and 29SJ 721 91 

2.35. Occurrence of recorded sandstone formations in vessel forms 92 

2.36. Grain sizes of identified sandstone formations 92 

2.37. Site distributions of identified sandstone formations 94 

2.38. Type by vessel form for chalcedonic cement sandstone 96 

2.39. Chalcedonic sandstone cement colors for types, forms, and sites from 29SJ 299- 

BMIII, 29SJ 423, 29SJ 1360 and Pueblo Alto 97 

2.40. Type by vessel form for rounded iron oxide sandstone temper 99 

2.41. Type by vessel form for magnetitic sandstone temper 100 

2.42. Type by vessel form for combined San Juan temper 102 

2.43. Occurrence of subtypes of San Juan temper by ceramic type 103 

2.44. San Juan temper subtypes by form and site i 104 

2.45. Type distributions for three classes of trachyte temper from sites 29SJ 423, 
29SJ 299-BMIII, 29SJ 629, 29SJ 1360, and Pueblo Alto, where the three were 
distinguished 106 

2.46. Form and site distributions for three classes of trachyte temper from sites 29SJ 423, 
29SJ 299-BMin, 29SJ 629, 29SJ 1360, and Pueblo Alto, where all three were 
distinguished 107 

2.47. Type by vessel form for unmixed trachyte temper 108 

2.48. Type by vessel form for all mixed trachyte-sandstone temper 109 

2.49. Occurrence of minor tempers by vessel form 113 

2.50. Summary of colors and qualities of clays tested 116 

2.51. Summary of oxidation colors of Chaco clay samples 118 

2.52. Summary of oxidation colors from sandstone and sherd-tempered sherds from 

Chaco Project sites 118 

2.53. Major ceramic groupings found in Chaco Canyon 120 

2.54. Date ranges used by Mills (1986) and the Chaco Project staff 123 

2.55. Method of temporal placement of types showing default time segments and time 

spans for each type 124 

2.56. Correspondence of type default placement with time group occurrence 125 

2.57. Comparison of early carbon-on- white and mineral-on-white occurrence, refiring 

colors and tempers 128 

2.58. Summary of identifiable ceramic imports through time at all Chaco Project sites 

combined 130 

2.59. Grain size of unidentified sandstone through time for all Chaco Project sites and 
maximum identifiable import totals from Table 2.58, assuming coarse sandstone 

is not local 136 



Xll 



2.60. Converted estimates of trachyte-sand mixed tempers 139 

2.61. Summary of identifiable ceramic imports through time at Pueblo Alto 140 

2.62. Summary of identifiable ceramic imports through time to Chaco Project small sites 

(29SJ 627, 29SJ 629, 29SJ 1360, and 29SJ 633) 142 

2.63. Shannon-Weaver diversity and evenness of import types by site-time group 143 

2.64. Grain size of unidentified sandstone through time at Pueblo Alto, and maximum 
identifiable import totals from Table 2.61, assuming coarse sandstone is not local .... 145 

2.65. Small site unidentified sandstone grain size through time and import totals 

assuming coarse sandstone is not local 146 

2.66. Comparison of percentages of import from five Chaco Canyon sites through time 148 

2.67. All known suggestions of evidence for ceramic production at sites in Chaco Canyon . . . 154 

2.68. Arnold's (1980:149) ethnographic sample of distances travelled to obtain ceramic 

materials ■ 162 

2.69. Whole vessel correlations between grayware metric attributes: jars greater than 500 cc . 168 

2.70. Correlations between grayware metric attributes for entire analysis sample 170 

2.71. Grayware rim metrics by type and temper 171 

2.72. Distribution summary for Chaco grayware metric attributes showing number of peaks 
at various cutoff percentages and number of points above 10% and 15% where type 

and type-temper samples are 20 or more 174 

2.73. Lino and Obelisk Gray jar and tecomate diameters by type and temper group 176 

2.74. Best discriminant analysis classifications of corrugated wares by temper, showing 
misclassifications and percentages correct 186 

2.75. Discriminant analysis of whole grayware types by sites, using the number of 

variables giving the best classification results for each type 189 

2.76. Discriminant analysis classification of corrugated type-temper groups by site 190 

2.77. Discriminant analysis summary showing incorrect and correct placements of 

sandstone and trachyte cases by site 192 

2.78. Summary of tests of MANOVA values significant at .05 and .10 194 

2.79. Primary surface manipulation of grayware types by major temper group 197 

2.80. Site occurrence of primary grayware surface manipulation by type with minor 

and unidfferentiated categories excluded 198 

2.81. Chi-square test results from comparisons of type-temper and type-site groups by 

grayware surface manipulation 199 

2.82. Surface manipulation diversity for types with more than two major categories 201 

2.83. Rim diameters and coefficients of variation within size-temper groups 203 

2A. 1. Lino Gray definition 220 

2A.2. Lino Fugitive Red definition 223 

2A.3. Polished Tan Gray (Obelisk Gray) definition 227 

2A.4. Wide Neckbanded definition 232 

2A.5. Narrow Neckbanded definition 236 

2A.6. Neck Corrugated definition 242 

2A.7. Pueblo II (PH) Corrugated definition 247 

2 A. 8. Pueblo II-Pueblo III (PII-PIII) Corrugated definition 251 

2A.9. Pueblo III (PHI) Corrugated definition 255 

2A.10. Unidentified Corrugated definition 259 

2A.11. Unpolished Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I (BMIII-PI) Mineral-on-white definition 264 

2A.12. Polished Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I (BMIII-PI) Mineral-on-white definition 271 

2A.13. Early Red Mesa Black-on-white definition 280 



Xlll 



2A.14. Red Mesa Black-on-white definition 290 

2A.15. Puerco Black-on-white definition 299 

2A.16. Escavada Black-on-white definition 307 

2A.17. Gallup Black-on-white definition 317 

2A.18. "Puesga" Black-on-white definition 326 

2A.19. Chaco Black-on-white definition 336 

2A.20. Exotic Mineral-on-white definition 341 

2A.21. Pueblo H-Pueblo III (PII-PIII) Mineral-on-white definition 353 

2A.22. Unidentified Whiteware definition 360 

2A.23. Unpolished Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I (BMIII-PI) Carbon-on-white definition 366 

2A.24. Polished Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I (BMIII-PI) Carbon-on-white definition 371 

2A.25. Pueblo II-Pueblo III (PII-PIII) Carbon-on-white definition 378 

2A.26. Chaco McElmo Black-on-white definition 387 

2A.27. Mesa Verde Black-on-white definition 393 

2A.28. Tusayan Carbon-on-white definition (Sosi-Black Mesa Black-on-white) 398 

2A.29. Chuska Black-on-white definition 403 

2A.30. Chuska Carbon-on-white definition 407 

2A.31. Chuska Carbon-on-white with Red Mesa Design definition 412 

2A.32. Redware definition 421 

2A.33. Polished Smudged definition 437 

2A.34. Brownware definition 442 

2B.1. Surface treatment labels and codes, in the order shown in type definition tables, 

undecorated wares only 450 

2B.2. Motif labels and codes, in the order shown in type definiton labels 453 

2D.1. Summary of statistics and symbols used in various chapters 510 

VOLUME n. 



CHIPPED STONE 

3.1. Sites excavated by the Chaco Project and chipped stone frequency 531 

3.2 Description of the chipped stone artifact types and other variables recorded during 

analyses 533 

3.3. Attributes used in detailed analysis form 535 

3.4. History of use of detailed analysis 536 

3.5. Other studies of lithic materials 536 

3.6. Description of sites excavated by the Chaco Project 537 

3.7. Time-space matrix 539 

3.8. Material type by time period: Exotic versus local 544 

3.9. Material type by time period 546 

3.10. Obsidian sources 547 

3.11. Obsidian sources by time 548 

3.12. Ratio of debitage to tools for three obsidian sources 550 

3.13. Ratio of debitage of tools— exotic material 552 

3.14. Comparison of tools to debitage for materials from the Morrison Formation 552 



XIV 



3.15. Frequency of material for greathouse and small-house sites 554 

3.16. Ratio of utilized and retouched flakes to all debitage 555 

3.17. Frequency and proportions of material for cores versus all other chipped stone 557 

3.18. Grouped material by grouped weight for cores 558 

3.19. Material type by amount of cortex 559 

3.20. Cores: Material type by core type 560 

3.21. Material frequency: Tools versus all chipped stone 561 

3.22. Frequency of ungrouped material type for tools compared with all chipped stone 562 

3.23. Material type variation for tools 565 

3.24. Material by time for formal tools 570 

3.25. Distribution of tool types through time 571 

3.26. Distribution of tools in space compared to all chipped stone 574 

3.27. Formal tools: Grouped artifact type (1-4) by space 575 

3.28. Ratio of whole tools to fragmentary tools by space 576 

3.29. Formal tools: Greathouse and small-house sites 576 

3.30. Formal tools in screened deposits: Sites 29SJ 627 and 29SJ 629 577 

3.31. Sites contributing proveniences to cells where more than 50 items were 

accumulated within each cell 578 

3.32. Summary of Chi-square statistics for proveniences 579 

3.33. Assemblages— Material type (N=60) 583 

3.34. Assemblages— Artifact type (N=56) 584 

3.35. Classification of material type assemblages 585 

3.36. Distribution of material groupings from Table 3.33 in time-space matrix 586 

3.37. Artifact type assemblages with debitage frequency greater than 1 standard deviation 

from the mean 590 

3.38. Distribution of projectile points in artifact type assemblages 591 

3.39. Presence of miscellaneous blade fragments in artifact type assemblages 593 

3.40. Presence of drills in artifact type assemblages 594 

3.41. Presence of miscellaneous low frequency formal tools in artifact type assemblages .... 595 

3.42. Volume of chipped stone used per household per year 602 

3A.1. Frequency of material types in Chaco Canyon chipped stone collections 611 

3A.2. Lithologic types for localities near Chaco Canyon 616 

3A.3. Characteristics and possible archeological significance of geological deposits in the 

upper Chaco drainage basin 623 

3C.1. Material frequency: Cores versus all other chipped stone 644 

3C.2. Cores: Grouped material by grouped weight 648 

3C.3. Mean weight and length of cores by material type 649 

3C.4. Cores: Material type by core type 650 

3C.5. Core type (2-4) by grouped material 651 

3C.6. Mean length and weight of cores by core type 651 

3C.7. Core type by grouped weight 652 

3C.8. Material type by amount of cortex 653 

3C.9. Amount of cortex by core type 654 

3C.10. Attributes of cores by material 654 

3C.11. Core attributes by core type 654 

3C.12. Material type by period for cores compared to all chipped stone 655 

3C 13. Frequency of material for cores: Greathouse and small-house sites compared 



XV 



to all chipped stone 656 

3C.14. Core type by period 657 

3C.15. Spatial distribution of cores compared to all chipped stone 658 



POINTS, KNIVES, AND DRILLS 

4. 1 . Variables coded in chipped stone tool database 660 

4.2. Temporal framework 661 

4.3. Percentage seriation of 400 well-dated arrow points assigned to Basketmaker III, 

Pueblo I, Pueblo II, and Pueblo III periods 665 

4.4. Mean arrow point measurements 673 

4.5. Arrow point material types, entire collection and excavation 674 

4.6. Condition of arrow points 675 

4.7 Mean "knife" measurements 680 

4.8. Material types for various types of knives 683 

4.9. Mean drill measurements 687 

4.10. Drill base shapes through time 690 

4. 1 1 . Drill material types 690 



ABRADERS 

5. 1 . The random sample 703 

5.2. Active abraders 706 

5.3. Site distribution of active abraders 708 

5.4. Weights of soft active abraders 708 

5.5. Dimensions of soft active abraders 709 

5.6. Manufacture of soft active abraders 710 

5.7. Characteristics of the primary use surface of soft active abraders 710 

5.8. Other characteristics of primary use surfaces of soft active abraders 711 

5.9. Types of use on soft active abraders 711 

5.10. Weights of hard active abraders 717 

5.11. Dimensions of hard active abraders 717 

5.12. Materials of hard active abraders 718 

5.13. Manufacture of hard active abraders 718 

5.14. Previous forms of hard active abraders 719 

5.15. Characteristics of the primary use surface of hard active abraders 719 

5.16. Other characteristics of primary use surfaces on hard active abraders 720 

5.17. Secondary use of hard active abraders 725 

5.18. Site distribution of faceted abraders 729 

5.19. Weights of faceted abraders 729 

5.20. Dimensions of faceted abraders 730 

5.21. Faceted abraders compared with stone circle abraders 730 

5.22. Manufacture of faceted abraders 731 

5.23. Characteristics of the primary use surface of faceted abraders 731 

5.24. Other characteristics of use surfaces of faceted abraders 732 

5.25. Site distribution of active lapidary abraders 736 

5.26. Weights of active lapidary abraders 736 



XVI 



5.27. Dimensions of active lapidary abraders 737 

5.28. Manufacture of active lapidary abraders 737 

5.29. Characteristics of the primary use surface of active lapidary abraders 738 

5.30. Other characteristics of primary use surfaces of active lapidary abraders 739 

5.31. Associations of active lapidary abraders with turquoise debris 740 

5.32. Site distribution of manolike abraders 744 

5.33. Weights of manolike abraders 744 

5.34. Dimensions of manolike abraders 745 

5.35. Manufacture of manolike abraders 746 

5.36. Characteristics of the primary use surface of manolike abraders 746 

5.37. Other characateristics of primary use surfaces of manolike abraders 747 

5.38. Types of use on manolike abraders 747 

5.39. Comparison of Chaco mano and manolike abraders 748 

5.40. Site distribution of pigment abraders 748 

5.41. Weights of pigment abraders 749 

5.42. Dimensions of pigment abraders 749 

5.43. Colors of pigment abraders 750 

5.44. Characteristics of the primary use surface of pigment abraders 750 

5.45. Site distribution of paint grinders 752 

5.46. Weights of paint grinders 752 

5.47. Dimensions of paint grinders 752 

5.48. Characteristics of the primary use surface of paint grinders 753 

5.49. Site distribution of edge abraders 754 

5.50. Weights of edge abraders 754 

5.51. Dimensions of edge abraders 754 

5.52. Materials of edge abraders 755 

5.53. Characteristics of the primary use surface of edge abraders 756 

5.54. Other characteristics of use surfaces for edge abraders 756 

5.55. Within site locations of edge abraders 756 

5.56. Dimensions of cornbreaker abraders 757 

5.57. Use on cornbreaker abraders 757 

5.58. Dimensions of an unusual abraded rock 757 

5.59. Site distribution of abrader-anvils 760 

5.60. Weights of abrader-anvils 761 

5.61. Dimensions of abrader-anvils 761 

5.62. Materials of abrader-anvils 762 

5.63. Manufacture of abrader-anvils 762 

5.64. Characteristics of the primary use surface of abrader-anvils 762 

5.65. Other characteristics of primary use surface of abrader-anvils 763 

5.66. Passive abraders 764 

5.67. Site distribution of passive abraders 768 

5.68. Weights of passive abraders 768 

5.69. Dimensions of passive abraders 769 

5.70. Materials of passive abraders 770 

5.71. Manufacture of passive abraders 770 

5.72. Characteristics of primary wear of passive abraders 770 

5.73. Other characteristics of the primary use surfaces of passive abraders 771 

5.74. Types of use on passive abraders 772 

5.75. Site distribution of passive abrader-anvils 773 



XVll 



5.76. Weights of passive abrader-anvils 777 

5.77. Dimensions of passive abrader-anvils 777 

5.78. Materials and previous forms of passive abrader-anvils 778 

5.79. Characteristics of the primary use surface of passive abrader-anvils 778 

5.80. Other characteristics of the primary use surfaces of passive abrader-anvils 779 

5.81. Site distribution of passive lapidary abraders 779 

5.82. Weights of passive lapidary abraders 786 

5.83. Dimensions of passive lapidary abraders 787 

5.84. Materials, plan views, and previous forms of passive lapidary abraders 788 

5.85. Manufacture of passive lapidary abraders 789 

5.86. Characteristics of the primary use surface of passive lapidary abraders 790 

5.87. Other characteristics of use of surface contours on passive lapidary abraders 791 

5.88. Amount of use of passive lapidary abraders 791 

5.89. Associations of passive lapidary abraders with turquoise debris 792 

5.90. Dimensions of mortars, pecked-hole abraders, and paint mortar 795 

5.91. Characteristics of the use surface of mortars, pecked-hole abraders, and paint mortar . . 795 

5.92. Site distribution of undifferentiated palettes 797 

5.93. Weights of undifferentiated palettes 797 

5.94. Dimensions of undifferentiated palettes 798 

5.95. Characteristics of the primary use surface of undifferentiated palettes 798 

5.96. Site distribution of incidental palettes 799 

5.97. Dimensional variables of incidental palettes 800 

5.98. Characteristics of the primary use surface of incidental palettes 800 

5.99. Grooved abraders 801 

5.100. Site distribution of grooved abraders 805 

5.101. Weights of grooved abraders 805 

5.102. Dimensions of undifferentiated grooved abraders 806 

5.103. Characteristics of the primary use surface of undifferentiated grooved abraders 807 

5.104. Other characteristics of use surfaces of undifferentiated grooved abraders 807 

5.105. Site distribution of shaft shapers 809 

5. 106. Weights of shaft shapers 809 

5.107. Dimensions of shaft shapers 809 

5.108. Characteristics of the primary use surface of shaft shapers 810 

5.109. Site distribution of decorative grooved rocks 811 

5.110. Dimensions of decorative grooved rocks 811 

5.111. Characteristics of the primary use surface of decorative grooved rocks 812 

5.112. Polishing stones 813 

5.113. Site distribution of undifferentiated polishers 815 

5.114. Weights of undifferentiated polishers 815 

5.115. Dimensions of undifferentiated polishers 816 

5.116. Materials of undifferentiated polishers 816 

5.117. Shapes of undifferentiated polishers . 817 

5.118. Characteristics of primary use surface of undifferentiated polishers 817 

5.119. Other characteristics of the primary use surface of undifferentiated polishers 818 

5.120. Secondary use of undifferentiated polishers 818 

5.121. Percentage of polishers in the abrader total 819 

5.122. Site distribution of pot polishers 819 

5.123. Weights of pot polishers 821 

5.124. Dimensions of pot polishers 821 



XVlll 



5.125. Characteristics of the primary use surface of pot polishers 822 

5.126. Site distribution of large polishers 823 

5.127. Weights of large polishers 827 

5.128. Dimensions of large polishers 827 

5.129. Materials of large polishers 828 

5.130. Characteristics of primary use surface of large polishers 828 

5.131. Other characteristics of the primary use surfaces of large polishers 829 

5.132. Site distribution of edge polishers 830 

5.133. Weights of edge polishers 831 

5.134. Dimensions of edge polishers 831 

5.135. Characteristics of the primary use surface of edge polishers 832 

5.136. Dimensions of lightning stones 832 

5.137. Anvils 832 

5.138. Site distribution of anvils 832 

5.139. Weights of undifferentiated anvils 837 

5.140. Dimensions of undifferentiated anvils 838 

5.141. Materials of undifferentiated anvils 838 

5.142. Shapes of undifferentiated anvils 839 

5.143. Manufacture of undifferentiated anvils 839 

5.144. Characteristics of the primary use surface of undifferentiated anvils 840 

5.145. Secondary use on undifferentiated anvils 841 

5.146. Site distribution of anvil-abraders 841 

5.147. Weights of anvil-abraders 843 

5.148. Dimensions of anvil-abraders 843 

5.149. Manufacture of anvil-abraders 844 

5.150. Characteristics of the primary use surface of anvil-abraders 844 

5.151. Condition of the artifact in percentages 845 

5.152. Burning of abraders 845 

5.153. Percentage of material type per site 846 

5.154. Cobble materials 847 

5.155. Percentage of abrader shapes by site 847 

5.156. Reuse of abraders 848 

5.157. Sites ranked by the amount of reutilization 848 

5.158. Abrader types by site 849 

5.159. Manufacture of abraders by site 851 

5.160. Amount of work invested in abraders by site 852 

5.161. Amount of work invested in modified abraders 852 

5.162. Amount of use of abraders by site 852 

5.163. Absence of other use on abraders by site 853 

5.164. Amount of secondary use by site 853 

5.165. Secondary artifact types of abraders by site 854 

5.166. 29SJ 299 abraders 857 

5. 167. Pueblo Alto abraders 860 

5.168. A comparison of abraders from Gallup and Chaco-McElmo trash 880 

5.169. 29SJ 390 abraders 883 

5.170. Una Vida abraders 884 

5.171. 29SJ 423 abraders 888 

5. 172. 29SJ 627 abraders 891 

5.173. Primary context abraders by construction episode at 29SJ 627 905 



XIX 



5.174. 29SJ 628 abraders 910 

5. 175. 29SJ 629 abraders 915 

5.176. Selected hard active abrader to polisher ratios 921 

5.177. 29SJ 633 abraders 923 

5.178. 29SJ 721 abraders 928 

5.179. 29SJ 724 abraders 929 

5.180. 29SJ 1360 abraders 931 

5.181. 29SJ 1659 abraders 933 



VOLUME m. 



HAMMERSTONES 

6.1. Sites from which hammerstones were analyzed 948 

6.2. Results of first discriminant run 954 

6.3. Results of second discriminant run 955 

6.4. Results of third discriminant run 956 

6.5. Results of fourth discriminant run 957 

6.6. Results of fifth discriminant run. Material types as groups 958 

6.7. Results of sixth discriminant run. Parent state removed from the analysis 958 

6.8. Cross tabulations of weight by morphology 959 

6.9. Cross tabulation of parent state by morphology 962 

6. 10. Cross tabulation of parent state by technology of manufacture 963 

6.11. Percentages of angular and spheroidal hammerstones by site 963 

6. 12. Material type by site 965 

6.13. Distribution of hammerstones by provenience 968 



AXES AND MAULS 

7.1. Axes and mauls of the work sample 981 

7.2. Sites with grooved stone implements (axes and mauls) 991 

7.3. Ratio of axes to total ground floor rooms 993 



MANOS 

8.1. Frequency of mano cross-section types 998 

8.2. Size of manos by cross-section 1000 

8.3. Number of finger grooves by mano type 1001 

8.4. Shape of mano ends by cross-section 1002 

8.5. Cross-section by grinding surface preparation 1002 

8.6. Type of secondary use by associated artifact type 1004 

8.7. Distribution of mano cross-section types by time 1005 

8.8. Mano cross-section types by time 1005 

8.9. Projected use-rate of manos at greathouse and small-house sites 1007 

8.10. Frequency of beveled and triangular manos at greathouse and small-house sites 1007 



xx 



METATES 

9.1. Geological structure 1033 

9.2. Color 1034 

9.3. Grain size 1035 

9.4. Hardness 1036 

9.5. Manufacture by site 1036 

9.6. Plan view by site 1039 

9.7. Work investment by site 1039 

9.8. Major metate type by site 1039 

9.9. Metate distribution by type 1041 

9.10. Dimensions for metates 1043 

9.11. Dimensions for the trough and the near-end shelf 1043 

9.12. Near-end shelf width 1044 

9.13. Right and lateral shelf width 1044 

9.14. Grinding surface preparation 1046 

9.15. Characteristics due to milling 1047 

9.16. Characteristics of the trough 1050 

9.17. Shape of the near-end of the trough 1051 

9.18. Amount of use 1052 

9.19. Floor wear 1052 

9.20. Bin wear 1054 

9.21. Condition 1054 

9.22. Number of major secondary use surfaces 1057 

9.23. Location of major secondary utilized surfaces 1058 

9.24. Major secondary utilization 1058 

9.25. Number of other utilized surfaces 1059 

9.26. Characteristics of other utilized areas 1059 

9.27. Percent of metate use 1067 

9.28. Other artifact type 1071 

9.29. Disposition by site 1074 

9A.1. Metates from Salmon Ruin 1083 

9B.1. Metate matches 1089 

9E.1. Undulations, depth in centimeters from top of metate 1101 

9E.2. Average area at top of metate in square centimeters 1102 

9E.3. Average open-at-one-end trough dimensions by site 1102 

9F.1. Weights and measurements of metate fragments from 29SJ 389 (Pueblo Alto) 1105 

9F.2. Metate fragments from the surface of 29SJ 633, in-field recording 1110 

9F.3. Width of lateral or near-end shelves of metates from 29SJ 633, in-field recording .... 1114 

9F.4. Thickness of metates from 29SJ 633, in-field recording 1114 



XXI 



ORNAMENTS 

10.1. Material types found in Chacoan archeological sites during the 1971-1978 

excavations 1124 

10.2. Shells identified by H. DuShane, based on Keen (1971) 1128 

10.3. Material types by sites by time frame 1 132 

10.4. Archaic-Basketmaker II ornament and mineral materials 1138 

10.5. Basketmaker II ornaments taken from Jernigan (1978) 1141 

10.6. Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I ornament and mineral materials 1144 

10.7. Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I sites/ornaments from Mesa Verde 1154 

10.8. Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I sites/ornaments from the Rio Grande Valley 1156 

10.9. Early Bonito Phase (A.D. 920-1020) ornament and mineral materials 1158 

10.10. Classic Bonito Phase (A.D. 1020-1120) ornament and mineral materials 1167 

10.11. Late Bonito Phase (A.D. 1120-1220) ornament and mineral materials 1171 

10.12. Early Bonito Phase (A.D. 920-1020) ornament and mineral materials 1172 

10.13. Classic Bonito Phase (A.D. 1020-1120) ornament and mineral materials 1172 

10.14. Late Bonito Phase (A.D. 1120-1220) ornament and mineral materials 1174 

10.15. Ornaments from Salmon Ruin 1178 

10.16. Ornaments and ornament-related materials from the Chacoan occupation at 

Salmon Ruin 1181 

10.17. Ornamental objects from the Bis sa'ani Community 1185 

10.18. Ornaments and minerals from Guadalupe Ruin 1186 

10.19. Ornaments from the Village of the Great Kivas 1192 

10.20. Ornaments and minerals from the Mesa Verde Phase at 29SJ 633 1193 

10.21. List of Aztec burials by location 1194 

10.22. Grave goods found with Burial 16, Aztec Ruin 1197 

10.23. Grave goods found with Burial 25, Aztec Ruin 1198 

10.24. Ornaments and ornament-related materials from the Mesa Verdean occupation at 

Salmon Ruin 1200 



INFERENCES 

11.1. Materials used for abraders and anvils at Chaco sites 1223 



XXll 



List of Figures 



VOLUME I. 



INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Northwestern New Mexico showing location of Chaco Canyon within the 

San Juan Basin 2 

1.2. Major sites excavated during the NPS Chaco Project 3 



CERAMICS 

2.1. Chuskan olla from multiple Pueblo Alto proveniences illustrating the independence 

of rim decoration from main body decoration often seen in whiteware jars and ollas .... 22 

2.2. Histograms showing occurrence of sherd temper A) in graywares, B) in mineral- 
painted, and C) carbon-painted whitewares 42 

2.3. Schematic development and appropriate chronology of hachure development in 

Chacoan Cibola Whiteware 48 

2.4. Vessel form outlines 58 

2.5. Box plot of whiteware bowls 59 

2.6. Box plot of grayware jar diameters by type 66 

2.7. Box plot of rim diameters of non-bowl whiteware forms 67 

2.8. Map of temper material occurrence in the Chaco region showing locations of 
igneous temper materials and major outcrops of formations containing coarse- 
grained sandstone 93 

2.9. Occurrence of trachyte through time. A) Counts of trachyte temper by time group 
showing ware breakdowns. B) Occurrence of trachyte shown as percent of total 

time groups Ill 

2.10. Map showing approximate areas of production of ceramics found in Chaco Canyon 

in the eleventh and twelfth centuries 122 

2.11. Major import temper materials in whitewares found in Chaco Canyon sites by 

time period 133 

2.12. Major import temper materials in graywares found in Chaco Canyon sites by 

time period 133 

2.13. Tempering materials in redwares found in Chaco Canyon sites by time period 134 

2.14. Summary of trends in import to Chaco Canyon by time period 134 

2.15. Scatterplot showing the fall off of trachyte temper in A) grayware and 

B) whiteware with increased distance from the Chuska Valley 150 

2.16. Examples of extremely fine workmanship, possibly the work of a single potter 
("our lady"). All are Red Mesa Black-on-white with fine line control, similar 

xxiii 



scalloped triangles in dense black mineral paint and hard, thin, well-polished, 

sand and sherd tempered walls 157 

2.17. Pottery scrapers from A) 29SJ 299 and B) 29SJ 362 160 

2.18. Metric variables used in grayware studies 167 

2.19. Frequency distributions for orifice diameters of A) neck corrugated and B) Pueblo II 
corrugated by major temper type 178 

2.20. Box plot of rim-flare widths in types with fillets 179 

2.21. Rim-flare distribution for four corrugated types 181 

2.22. Notched box plot of orifice-to-rim distance by type 182 

2.23. Coefficient of variation summaries for A) sandstone temper, and B) trachyte 

temper, by chronologically ar inged type 183 

2.24. Box plots of size-temper group diameters in Pueblo II corrugated 204 

2.25 Chuska whiteware jar handle depicting hands 215 

2A.1. Lino Gray tecomate from 29SJ 299 219 

2A.2. Wide Neckbanded (Kana'a Neckbanded) jar from 29SJ 629, Pithouse 2 231 

2A.3. Neck corrugated jar from 29SJ 1360, House 1 240 

2A.4. Neck corrugated (Tohatchi Corrugated) jar from 29SJ 629, Room 2 241 

2 A. 5. Pueblo II Corrugated vessel from 29SJ 629, Pithouse 2, showing the straight 

profile of the rim fillet relative to the body 246 

2A.6. Sherds from 29SJ 628 showing design, execution, and finish of early painted 

wares in Chaco Canyon 263 

2 A. 7. Bowl fragment from 29SJ 299, Pithouse D. This anthropomorphic figure is 

often seen in bowls from this era (Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I Mineral-on-white) 263 

2A.8. Bowl (Early Red Mesa Black-on- white) from 29SJ 629 showing design pendant 

from the rim and three-part division of field 279 

2A.9. Red Mesa Black-on-white bowl and jar sherds (early A.D. 1000s) from Pueblo 

Alto Trash Mound 287 

2A.10. Red Mesa Black-on-white ladle from 29SJ 629, Room 7 288 

2A.11. Bowl sherds from 29SJ 629 showing a range of Red Mesa designs including 

checkerboards, squiggle and Hachure A, ticked triangles, and scrolls 288 

2A.12. Red Mesa Black-on-white jar sherds from 29SJ 629 289 

2A.13. Vessels from 29SJ 629 (canteen) and 29SJ 1360 (pitcher) showing designs 

transitional between Red Mesa and early Gallup Black-on-white 314 

2A.14. Early Gallup Black-on-white sherds from 29SJ 629 315 

2A.15. Gallup Black-on-white sherds from the Pueblo Alto Trash Mound 316 

2A.16. Chaco Black-on-white sherds from Chetro Ketl 335 

2A.17. Large jar from 29SJ 627 335 

2 A. 18. Restored Chaco McElmo Black-on-white canteen from two different rooms 

at Pueblo Alto 385 

2A.19. Chaco McElmo Black-on-white jar sherd from Pueblo Alto 386 

2A.20. Restored Nava/Crumbled House Black-on-white olla from several proveniences 

at Pueblo Alto 386 

2A.21. Box plot of redware bowl diameters by type group 418 

2A.22. Histogram showing distribution of all redware bowl diameters 419 

2A.23. Histogram of San Juan Redware bowl diameters from all time periods 420 

2B.1. Rim decorations 448 

2B.2. Culinary design styles identified by code value 451 



XXIV 



2B.3. Painted motifs identified by code value 455 

2B.4. Handle types identified by code value 467 

2C.1. Location of clay samples from Fajada Butte 471 

2C.2. Clay sample locations, Pueblo Bonito Quad, T21N, R10W. Samples 1-9, 14-15, 

and 19 : 472 

2C.3. Clay sample locations, Pueblo Bonito Quad, T21N, R10W. Samples 16-18 

(Cliff House Formation and Lewis Shale), 20 473 

2C.4. Clay sample locations, Kin Klizhin Quad, T21N, R11W and R12W. Samples 

10-13, and 21 ' 474 



VOLUME II. 



CHIPPED STONE 

3.1. Sources of chipped stone exotic to Chaco Canyon 540 

3.2. Sources of obsidian found in Chaco Canyon 542 

3.3. Temporal variation in obsidian 549 

3.4. Ratio of debitage to tools for exotic and local material by time 551 

3.5. Plot of material type assemblages against principal components 587 

3.6. Fall-off in abundance of Washington Pass Chert with distance from 

source 598 

3.7. Fall-off in abundance of yellow-brown spotted chert with distance from 

source 599 

3.8. Fall-off in abundance of Morrison Formation material with distance 

from source 600 

3A.1. Sources of chipped stone exotic to Chaco Canyon 620 

3A.2. Local sources of chipped stone 621 

3A.3. Silicic rock types from the Morrison Formation, New Mexico 627 

3C.1. Distribution of core weights 645 

3C.2. Distribution of maximum dimension 646 

3C.3. Distribution of weight by core type 647 



POINTS, KNIVES, AND DRILLS 

4.1. Synoptic point series 663 

4.2. Percentage seriation of 400 well-dated arrow points assigned to 

Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II, and Pueblo III periods 664 

4.3. Projectile points from well-dated contexts, Chaco Project excavations 666 

4.4. Selected points from Burial 10, Room 330, Pueblo Bonito 677 

4.5. Points with concave bases 678 

4.6. Knives 681 

4.7. Mean knife measurements 682 

4.8. "Knives" from Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo del Arroyo 686 



XXV 



4.9. Mean drill measurements 688 

4.10. Drills 689 

4.11. Micro-drills 692 

4.12. Odds and ends 693 



ABRADERS 



5. 1. 
5.2. 
5.3. 
5.4. 
5.5. 
5.6. 
5.7. 
5. 8. 
5.9. 
5.10. 
5.11. 
5.12. 
5.13. 
5.14. 
5.15. 
5.16. 
5.17. 
5.18. 
5.19. 
5.20. 
5.21. 
5.22. 
5.23. 
5.24. 

5.25. 

5.26. 



Use surface locations , 705 



Type 10 
Type 10 
Type 10 
Type 10 
Type 10 
Type 10 
Type 10 



soft active abraders 712 

soft active abraders 713 

soft active abraders 714 

soft active abraders 715 

hard active abraders 721 

hard active abraders 722 

hard active abraders 723 



Mano fragments reused as active abraders 724 



Type 11 
Type 11 
Type 11 
Type 12 
Type 12 
Type 13 
Type 13 
Type 15 



faceted abraders 726 

faceted abraders 727 

faceted abraders 728 

active lapidary abraders 734 

active lapidary abraders 735 

manolike abraders 742 

manolike abraders 743 

paint grinders 751 



An unusual abraded rock from 29SJ 627 757 

Type 19: abrader-anvils 759 

Type 19: abrader-anvils 760 

Type 20: undifferentiated passive abraders 765 

Type 20: undifferentiated passive abraders 766 

Type 20: undifferentiated passive abraders 767 

Types 21 and 51: passive abrader-anvil and anvil-passive 

abrader combination 774 

Types 21 and 51: passive abrader-anvil and anvil -passive abrader 

combination 775 

Types 21 and 51: passive abrader-anvil and anvil-passive abrader 

combination 776 

passive lapidary abraders 781 

passive lapidary abraders 782 

passive lapidary abraders 783 

passive lapidary abraders 784 

passive lapidary abraders 785 

mortars 793 

pecked-hole abrader and type 29: paint mortar 794 

undifferentiated palettes 797 

raised bordered palettes 799 

incidental palettes 801 

undifferentiated grooved abraders 802 

undifferentiated grooved abraders 803 



5.27. 


Type 22: 


5.28. 


Type 22: 


5.29. 


Type 22: 


5.30. 


Type 22: 


5.31. 


Type 22: 


5.32. 


Type 24: 


5.33. 


Type 25: 


5.34. 


Type 26: 


5.35. 


Type 27: 


5.36. 


Type 28: 


5.37. 


Type 30: 


5.38. 


Type 30: 



XXVI 



5.39. Type 30: undifferentiated grooved abraders 804 

5.40. Type 31: shaft shapers 808 

5.41. A decorative grooved rock from 29SJ 389 811 

5.42. A paint sharpener from 29SJ 389 812 

5.43. Type 40: undifferentiated polishers 814 

5.44. Type 41: pot polishers 820 

5.45. Type 42: large polishers 824 

5.46. Type 42: large polishers 825 

5.47. Type 42: large polishers 826 

5.48. Type 44: lightning stones 833 

5.49. Type 50: undifferentiated anvils 835 

5.50. Type 50: undifferentiated anvils 836 

5.51. An undifferentiated anvil from 29SJ 389 837 

5.52. Type 52: anvils-abraders 842 

5.53. Site locations 855 



VOLUME HI. 



HAMMERSTONES 

6.1. Percentages of material types by site 952 

6.2. Angular hammerstones by weight class 960 



AXES AND MAULS 

7.1. Axes and maul form 978 

7.2. a) Axe terminology (after Kidder 1932:45) 

b) Dimensions taken on stone axes 979 

7.3. Small axe of Cliff House sandstone with a poll groove from 29SJ 627 982 

7.4. Rectangular Cliff House sandstone axe with sharp bit, shaped by pecking 

and grinding, from 29SJ 627 982 

7.5. Very battered 3/4 grooved claystone axe, polished and with many 

striations, from 29SJ 627 983 

7.6. Long pointed maul from the ground stone cache on the floor in the 

northwest corner of Room 8 at 29SJ 627 983 

7.7. Battered maul with full medial groove from 29SJ 627 984 

7.8. Example of a large grooved Cliff House sandstone maul, shaped by 

pecking and grinding and re-grooved from 29SJ 627 984 

7.9. Example of an irregularly shaped maul from 29SJ 627 manufactures out 

of a notched homblende-diorite river cobble 985 

7.10. Hornblende-diorite maul with sharpened bit and poll and medial grooves, 

from the ground stone cache in Room 8, 29SJ 627 985 

7.11. Gabbro/greenstone axe, from 29SJ 628 986 

7.12. Crudely shaped Cliff House sandstone maul from 29SJ 628 986 

7.13. Small grooved hammer of Cliff House sandstone from 29SJ 629 987 

7.14. Notched axe of hornblende-gneiss from 29SJ 1360 987 



xxvu 



7.15. Very battered, full-grooved greenstone axe from 29SJ 390 988 



MANOS 

8 1. Mano cross-section types 998 

8.2. Configuration of ends 1001 



METATES 

9.1. Types of metates 1018 

9.2. Trough metate fragments without shelf, but clearly closed at one end 1019 

9.3. Trough metate fragment with 19 cm near-end shelf 1021 

9.4. Trough metate fragment with irregular, wide, near-end shelf 1021 

9.5. Trough metate fragment with rectangular near-end shelf 1022 

9.6. Trough metate fragment with rectangular near-end shelf 1022 

9.7. Example of geological structure: Trough metate fragment from Pueblo Alto, 

Room 110 1030 

9.8. Example of geological structure: A) Trough metate fragment from Pueblo 
Alto, Other Structure 6. B) Trough metate fragment from Pueblo 

Alto, Plaza Feature 1, Test Trench 1 1031 

9.9. Example of geological structure: Trough metate fragments from Pueblo Alto, 
kiva complex at southwestern corner of plaza and Other Structure 9, north of 

Room 209 1032 

9.10. Example of geological structure: Trough metate fragment from Pueblo Alto, 

Room 103, Test Pit 5, Layer 2 1032 

9.11. Metate fragment from Pueblo Alto, Kiva 15, Test Pit 2, Layer 7, showing 

rounded ends due to pecking? 1038 

9.12. Metate fragament from Pueblo Alto, Room 142, Test Trench 1, Level 11, 

showing bottom that has been pecked 1038 

9.13. Examples of pecking and abrading 1046 

9.14. Example of an undulating trough wall 1049 

9.15. Example of undulating trough walls 1049 

9.16. Example of an undulating trough wall 1050 

9.17. Trough metate fragment with concentration of pecks recovered from Pueblo 

Alto, Other Structure 7 1061 

9.18. Trough metate fragment with concentration of peck marks 1061 

9.19. Trough metate fragment with peck marks in trough 1062 

9.20. Trough metate fragment showing where bottom was used extensively as an 

anvil 1062 

9.21. Trough metate fragment with evidence of anvil wear on bottom 1063 

9.22. Trough metate fragment illustrating a shelf used as an anvil 1063 

9.23. Trough metate fragment with deep striations 1064 

9.24. Trough metate with kill hole 1066 

9.25. Thinnest trough metate fragment recorded during analysis 1069 

9.26. Trough metate removed from partition wall in Room 103 of Pueblo Alto 1070 

9.27. Barely used trough metate that functioned as a slab cover— trough side up 1070 



XXVU1 



9B.1. Three metate fragments from Room 103 at Pueblo Alto 1091 

9B.2. Reconstructed metate from Room 110 and Kiva 15 at Pueblo Alto 1091 

9B.3. Two metate fragments recovered from the south wall construction and fill of 

Kiva 15 at Pueblo Alto 1092 

9B.4. Six metate fragments recovered from Firepit 1, Floor 1, Room 147 at 

Pueblo Alto 1092 

9B.5. Two metate fragments from wall clearing south of Kiva 8 at Pueblo Alto 1093 

9B.6. Two metate fragments from Plaza 1, wall clearing at Pueblo Alto north of 

Rooms 200 and 198, Layer 2 1093 



ORNAMENTS 

10.1. Ornament types from Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I sites in Chaco Canyon 1148 

10.2. Ornament types from the Early Bonito Phase sites in Chaco Canyon 1164 

10.3. Ornament types from the Classic Bonito Phase sites in Chaco Canyon 1169 



XXIX 



Chapter Six 



A Preliminary Analysis of Hammerstones 
From Chaco Canyon, New Mexico 



W. H. Wills 



Experience has shown that time 

spent in the meticulous weighing, 
measuring, and classifying of 
hammers, for the most part, is time 
lost. E. Haury 

Preface 

This analysis was done as an undergraduate 
research project in 1976, supervised by W. James 
Judge. In the nearly twenty years since the analysis 
was completed, hammerstones remain largely ignored 
in Southwestern lithic studies, and this is perhaps the 
way it should be. Hammerstones are such 
generalized tools that their relevance to explanatory 
models is probably minor in most cases since 
functional interpretations tend to be extremely 
ambiguous (Dodd 1979). At Chaco, however, there 
are temporal patterns in hammerstone material 
selection that are interesting and point to some sort of 
shift in functional requirements for hammers. I am 
inclined to think that increased use of petrified wood 
through time was linked to flaked stone production 
but there was no way to assess this idea in the 
original analysis. I hope in the future that a more 
thorough consideration of hammerstones at Chaco 
will build on this preliminary work. 

Introduction 

Hammerstones must surely rate as one of the 
least studied of archeological remains. Unlike 
ceramics or projectile points, hammerstones do not 
lend themselves to easily constructed typologies or 
functional classes being, to paraphrase several 
authors, made from any available tough stone. Yet, 



as almost all Southwestern archeologists note, ham- 
merstones are among the most common and expected 
artifacts to be recovered during any excavation. The 
lack of attention these tools have received seems to 
be related to an accepted rule of thumb that hammer- 
stones are too general in nature to be worth studying; 
i.e., they were used for just about any manner of 
percussion and made of whatever sort of rock 
happened to be available at the time (Judd 1954: 177). 

The major thesis of this chapter is that hammer- 
stones, at least in Chaco Canyon, cannot be tossed 
off so lightly. They convey a wide variety of mean- 
ings for the researcher patient enough to seek them. 

As the title suggests, this paper is only an initial 
summary of analysis undertaken in 1977. Its main 
purpose is to elucidate the types of problems that 
need answers, to define specific characteristics to be 
studied in seeking these answers, and to present the 
methodology and justification for the way in which 
such answers are sought. In this regard, this paper 
is tediously long and burdened by graphics. I hope 
that the mundane detail herein will preclude its 
presentation in the final report and that this will allow 
a concentration on the more important questions 
which were not possible in this report. 

The remainder of the chapter is comprised of 
various analytical results produced in the hammer- 
stone study. Before proceeding to that, we must first 
define the term, "hammerstone. " The definition em- 
ployed here is broadly functional; a hammerstone is 
a modified or unmodified piece of stone showing 
evidence of percussion; i.e., presence of crushing 
(c.f. Judge 1973:2). This is the implicitly accepted 



948 Chaco Artifacts 



archeological definition and it will be noted, includes 
both original hammerstones and other tools reutilized 
as hammers. 

A total of 813 hammerstones were included in 
the study although, as it turns out, not all of these 
were hammers. Each hammerstone counts as one 
statistical case and with the exception of site 29SJ 
627, all sites were 100 percent sampled. Specimens 
from 29SJ 627 included all floor/floor fill /sub-floor 
hammerstones plus a rough grab assortment of other 
proveniences. Table 6. 1 gives counts per site. 



Table 6. 1. 


Sites from which hammer- 
stones were analyzed. 


Site 
Number 


Number 
Present 


Number 
Analyzed 


29SJ 423 


41 


41 


29SJ 299 


30 


30 


29SJ 721 


1 


1 


29SJ 628 


58 


58 


29SJ 724 


16 


16 


29SJ 629 


272 


272 


29SJ 1360 


80 


80 


29SJ 627 


535 


140 


29SJ 389 


176 


176 




Variables 





The variables monitored in the analysis were 
selected on the basis of their hoped-for relevance in 
providing information pertinent to the solution of 
several specific research problems. These problems 
can be subsumed under the rather broad categories of 
technology, resource location and variability. They 
are as follows: 

1) Are there different kinds of hammerstones? 

2) Do functional differences exist among 
hammerstones? 

3) Where was hammerstone material procured? 

4) Is there temporal variation among sites? 

5) Are there intrasite spatial differentiations? 

The variables described below were considered 
meaningful in approaching these questions. This 



assumption is both a mixture of intuition and 
experience. All derivation of relevant data is 
dependent upon the researchers' feelings as to what 
is useful in solving their specific problem and, in this 
particular case, it is assumed that a hammerstone is 
a tool and the best way to discover the meaning 
behind it, as such, is a consideration of its functional 
attributes; i.e., material type, morphology, wear 
patterns, etc. No further justification should be 
necessary with respect to criteria of variable 
selection, but it should be noted that a different 
variable assemblage (e.g., color, luster, texture) 
might well support different interpretations. The 
variables chosen here are thought to be the best in 
terms of answering (however inadequately) the 
questions outlined above. 

The variables are: 

1) Weight. Weight was measured to the 
nearest O.lg on a Dial-O-Gram scale. 

2) Material Type. Material type was deter- 
mined in accordance with Helene Warren's (1967) 
four digit lithic code. During later stages of the 
analysis, the specific types were at times combined 
into four groups: petrified wood, chert, sandstone, 
and quartzite. 

3) Parent State. This variable represents a 
classification of various possible original or initial 
forms from which the hammerstone was derived. 
The values are: 1) cobble, 2) tabular, 3) petrified 
wood, 4) other, and 5) unknown. Tabular was taken 
to mean forms having two or more flat sides as a 
result of natural sedimentary or crystallization 
processes. The value "other" was employed when 
the parent state of the hammerstone was recognizable 
but could not be entered in any of the first three 
values. 

4) Cortex. A working definition of cortex was 
taken to be the surface of the material exhibiting 
weathering. Occurrences of "false cortex," such as 
is often seen on petrified wood, was considered to be 
cortex and entered as such. 

5) Technology of Manufacture. This variable 
refers to whether or not the initial form of the 
hammerstone had been altered. The values are: 1) 
shaped by flaking, 2) shaped by other, and 3) not 
shaped. In a number of cases, it was not possible to 



Hammerstones 949 



attribute flake scars to human behavior; i.e., the 
possibility of natural action seemed equally 
warranted. In these instances, the value shaped by 
flaking was entered. The second value, shaped by 
other, refers to alteration of the original form not 
caused by flaking. If these two values were present 
on the same artifact, the predominant one was 
selected. 

6) Morphology. Morphology is simply a 
generalized category designed to take into account a 
number of dimensions contributing to form without 
monitoring a large number of dimensional variables. 
The values are: 1) angular, 2) spheroidal, 3) 
discoidal, and 4) slab. Angularity was, in general, 
defined operationally as the presence of an edge. 
Cases where this did not hold true were in the 
recognition of the discoidal and slab values which 
could also possess edges but in distinctive 
configurations. Perhaps a clear definition of 
angularity might be obtained if we say that it is 
characterized by edges which are irregular and do not 
contribute to the definition of a regular, specific 
morphological type. Spheroids were more or less 
round. 

7) Wear. Four categories of wear were 
distinguished: abrasion, battering, step fracture, and 
other. Combinations of these categories were also 
recognized. In assigning causation to the wear 
patterns observed, it was assumed that abrasion could 
be identified by the presence of striations and 
battering by a characteristic shattered and pitted 
surface. In the actual analysis, however, such 
distinctions were difficult to make. In most cases, 
abrasion of petrified wood was fairly easy to 
recognize, but in the case of quartzite, the 
differentiation between abrasion and extensive 
battering was not often easy, especially when the 
wear occurred on edges. Wear patterns on quartzite 
are very difficult to distinguish and polish rather than 
striation seems to be more common to this material 
when abraded (Toll 1976:1-39). Consequently, 
abrasion was often entered if the wear observed was 
present at edge locations not easily accessible to 
battering, i.e., the lateral sides. Planed-down 
surfaces and, of course, striae, when present, were 
also considered indicative of abrasion. This may well 
be the weakest portion of the analysis in that 
misinterpretation is certainly not uncommon. 
Nevertheless, the analysis should be internally 
consistent since conceptions of what constituted a 



particular type of wear did not change substantially 
during the analysis. 

8-10) Degree of Wear. This variable 
monitored the amount of specific wear types present 
as a percentage of the total wear observed. For 
example, if battering and step fracture had been noted 
in equal proportions, they would have been entered as 
50 percent battering and 50 percent step fracture. 

11) Function. Each artifact examined was 
assigned a subjective function based upon the 
analyst's conception of the type of tool it represented. 
The values are: 1) abrader, 2) hammer, 3) masonry, 
4) chopper, 5) manuport, 6) unknown, and 7) core. 
In general, abraders exhibited more abrasion than 
other wear types; hammers were thought to be 
characterized by battering and step fracture; masonry 
was assigned (usually) to those specimens 
characterized by greater relative weight, extreme 
battering and rounded morphology. Choppers were 
dependent upon flaking and steepness of edge angle; 
the steeper the angle the more likely to be a chopper. 
Often an artifact appeared to have been a chopper 
that had been exhausted and was subsequently used as 
a hammer. In these cases, the latest function was 
assigned. The values of unknown and core are fairly 
self-explanatory. Manuports are imported (to the 
site) items which do not exhibit signs of wear; they 
are not common. 

The hammerstone analysis form (Appendix 6A) 
summarizes the coding system used for this study. 

Classification 

One of the questions for which this analysis 
seeks an answer is the possible existence of different 
kinds of hammerstones. The method for examining 
this problem involves some sort of classification 
scheme. For the purposes of this paper the following 
assumption was considered basic to establishing a 
classification: if types of hammerstones exist, then 
similarities and differences among given attributes 
will vary significantly in relation to these types. 
Implicit in this approach is the notion that one can 
distinguish types of a specific artifact, providing that 
the prehistoric makers actually recognized such types. 
This has been a debated point. Ford (1952) and 
Brew (1946:46), on the one hand, have suggested that 
classification attempts are basically artificial and 
imposed upon the data since it is their belief that 



950 Chaco Artifacts 



change is continual in every aspect of cultural 
endeavor and hence, grouping artifacts as to types 
can only serve as an aid to the archeologist rather 
than a true reflection of prehistoric concepts. 
Spaulding (1953, 1972, 1976), however, champions 
the viewpoint that types do exist and that they are 
definable. 

...within a class of quite similar artifacts, 
classification into types is a process of 
discovery of combinations of attributes 
favored by the makers of the artifacts, not 
an arbitrary procedure of the classifier 
(Spaulding 1953:305). 

Obviously, I have chosen to accept the 
perspective that if specific kinds of hammerstones 
exist, they will be revealed by the demonstration of 
consistency in attribute correlations. Conversely, if 
specific kinds of hammerstones do not exist, if there 
is only one basic sort of hammerstone, then the 
relationship of attributes should also be indicative of 
this. In this sense, the existence of "real" types 
corresponding to prehistoric norms is irrelevant. If 
significant correlations exist, they will be treated as 
proper types. 

There are a variety of ways of classifying 
prehistoric artifacts. Some are more useful than 
others, depending upon the kinds of questions one 
wants to answer. In this particular case, I accept that 
the method for finding types of hammerstones, if they 
exist, is in consistent relationships among attributes. 
The problem then lies not in determining that patterns 
of covariation exist, but rather in demonstrating that 
such associations have or do not have a significant 
degree of association. The fact that the most reliable 
method for measuring covariation between attributes 
is statistical should be obvious. As Spaulding writes: 

...with the aid of statistical techniques, the 
degree of consistency in attribute com- 
binations can be discovered in any 
meaningful archeological assemblage 
provided sufficient material is at hand 
and, hence, valid types can be set up on 
the basis of analysis of material from one 
component (Spaulding 1953:305). 

The statistical methodology available to the 
archeologist is wide-ranging and sophisticated. It is 



the nature of the archeologist' s problem, however, 
which dictates the methods that can be utilized most 
meaningfully. 

The particular techniques chosen for this 
analysis were taken from the Statistical Package for 
the Social Sciences (Nie et al. 1975), a computer user 
packet providing a number of machine manipulated 
programs involving statistical computations. Three of 
these programs were employed; subprogram FRE- 
QUENCIES, subprogram CROSSTABS, and 
subprogram DISCRIMINANT. Although the user 
manual gives detailed explanations of the statistics 
and the analytical properties of their associated 
programs (to which the reader is encouraged to 
refer), a brief description will be presented here 
along with the justifications for their selection and a 
discussion of the results. 

Subprogram FREQUENCIES gives the re- 
searcher a number of useful descriptive statistics from 
his raw data which may have some value in revealing 
underlying distributions of the attributes being 
monitored (Nie et al. 1975:181). These statistics 
include, among others, the mean, standard error, 
standard deviation, variance and range, as well as 
optional graphic displays. Such summary statistics 
are very useful as the first portion of an analysis 
which can, in turn, provoke new questions or suggest 
significant patterning. As Thomas (1976:41) notes, 
"Science data never speak for themselves, an initial 
step in the analysis of anthropological data usually 
involves summarizing raw field data. " This was the 
rationale behind the use of FREQUENCIES in the 
hammerstone analysis. That is, it allowed for an 
initial assessment of the number and occurrence of 
the variables under study. 

Two FREQUENCIES runs were done; one was 
performed on all the data cases lumped as a group, 
while the second considered the cases particular to 
each site. The results immediately suggested certain 
groupings of attributes as well as changes through 
time. These revolved specifically around such 
variables as morphology, parent state, material type, 
and weight. It seemed, for example, that 
morphology might be closely related to material type 
and that these both might be related to weight. It 
also appeared that there was probably a shift in the 
types of material being utilized from one site to 
another, specifically in that percentages of quartzite 



Hammerstones 95 1 



hammerstones decreased from the earlier to the later 
sites while petrified wood hammerstones increased 
proportionately (Figure 6.1). 

These suggestive distribution patterns were then 
the first guides for seeking specific attribute 
correlations that would aid in defining or negating 
some sort of attribute organization; i.e., the presence 
or absence of observable types. It also hinted at 
temporal changes in hammerstone characteristics, a 
very important question which was proposed as one 
of the principal research problems. It is to the 
question of classification that this paper now 
primarily addresses itself. 

Subprogram CROSSTABS moves the analysis 
up from the level of descriptive statistics to that of 
contingency statistics, to the analysis of joint 
frequency distributions and their significance (Nie et 
al. 1975:218). This is the sort of analysis which, as 
previously suggested, would be most relevant to 
distinguishing artifact classes — measures of corre- 
lation between attributes. CROSSTABS provides for 
several significant tests including Chi-square, Phi, 
Cramer's V, and various other coefficients of 
contingency. A number of variables were selected 
for input in the CROSSTABS program, some on the 
basis of hunches developed during the actual tabletop 
examination of the hammerstones, others from the 
distribution patterning resulting from the FRE- 
QUENCIES runs. Although the CROSSTABS 
method of 2-by-2 contingency analysis was used to 
approach most of the problems outlined above, I now 
describe how it was specifically applied to the 
development of a hammerstone classification scheme. 

The scheme should, perhaps, be elaborated on 
at this point, or at least the guidelines used in 
searching for possible hammerstone classes. First, I 
have assumed that hammerstones have a single basic 
and underlying function, that being percussion. This 
point of view is explicit in the very definition of a 
hammerstone which stipulates that battering (wear 
resulting from impact) is the diagnostic criteria for 
assigning an artifact to the category, "hammerstone.' 1 
Hence, the classification attempt is concerned with 
function. The reason for this is simple; a 
hammerstone is a tool and tools are created for a 
purpose. Therefore, while there may be stylistic or 
secondary functional differences within a tool class 
(Binford 1972b:200; Jelinek 1976:19), the primary 
aspect of a tool is its intended function. In regard to 



hammerstones specifically, we might note that 
Longacre (1970:36) assigns hammerstones to a 
functional subgroup composed of percussion 
instruments (not to be confused with drums, 
however). Bordaz (1970:44) does likewise. In short, 
and to reiterate, the role of the hammerstone within 
the technological subsystem of the more inclusive 
cultural system is seen as functional and the attributes 
anticipated as important to differentiating classes are 
those thought to have functional significance. 

What, then, might these attributes be? In 
effect, all of those which were analyzed since all 
were considered relevant to functional interpretations. 
So, the problem then becomes one of determining 
which attributes are the most important in relation to 
function. It soon became obvious that CROSSTABS 
would be of little help in this area for while it did 
provide tables and tests of significance, these turned 
out to all have high degrees of significant correlation. 
The contingency approach did seem to isolate certain 
correlations of variables but was unable to 
differentiate as to variable importance. Conse- 
quently, there seemed a need for a stronger test, one 
which would bring some insight to the phenomenon 
of consistently high correlations among most of the 
study variables. 

Fortunately, SPSS has in the form of its 
DISCRIMINANT subprogram a method for 
measuring the degree to which individual variables 
can be used to predict on other variables. Very 
simply, DISCRIMINANT takes a set of groups 
specified by the researcher and a collection of 
variables expected to measure differences between 
those groups, weighs the variables statistically, and 
then combines them in such a way as to permit the 
researcher to discriminate between one or more 
groups on the basis of certain variables (Nie et al. 
1975:435). In effect, it makes statistical distinctions 
between groups. It also provides a ranking system 
which indicates which variables are most useful in the 
discriminating process. 

The first step in the application of this technique 
is to select the groups among which one wants to 
distinguish differences. This choice is important in 
that the groups specified should be relevant to the 
problem at hand: "These groups are defined by the 
particular research situation" (Nie et al. 1975:435). 
For the purposes of the hammerstone analysis, it was 
thought that the most useful attribute to be able to 



952 Chaco Artifacts 



LU 

O 

LU 

o 

a: 

LU 
CL 



100 

90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 




423 299 628 724 629 1360 627 389 

SITE 



QUARTZITE 
PETRIFIED WOOD 
SANDSTONE 
CHERT 



Figure 6. 1 . Percentages of material types by site. 



Hammerstones 953 



distinguish was morphology. The justification for 
using morphological criteria is twofold: 

1) During the initial tabletop analysis of a 
sample of 50 hammerstones, it seemed that certain 
distinct shapes or forms were present within the 
group as a whole. Consequently, a variable category 
was created with four values: angular, spheroidal, 
discoidal, and slab. This was not entirely arbitrary 
but was arrived at by a combination of what was seen 
in the Chaco material and what other researchers had 
noted, especially Haury (1976:279), Kidder 
(1932:60), and Woodbury (1954:89-91). 

2) Previous descriptions of hammerstones not 
only listed different shapes but also suggested that 
such shapes were the result of deliberate modification 
or specific types of use. For example, 

Examination shows that the original 
rounded contours of the stone were 
deliberately destroyed by striking chips 
more or less at random from various parts 
of the surface, the intention evidently 
having been to produce angular projec- 
tions... (Kidder 1932:60). 

Any tough stone that might be grasped in 
the hand sufficed for a hammer, but its 
surface was invariably fractured with 
another stone to produce jagged faces and, 
thus, increased its effectiveness (Judd 
1954:117). 

In the Medio Period of Casas Grandes, Di Peso 
notes that most hammerstones were: 

Simply angular stones selected for size 
and shape that fit hand and purpose. 
Others were waterworn pebbles with one 
end or several surfaces flaked to sharp 
angles, or in other instances merely 
battered from pounding (Di Peso 1974: 
108). 

Or, compare Hayes and Lancaster's description 
of hammerstone morphology from Badger House at 
Mesa Verde: 

The sharp or angular edge of the break 
was then used as the striking platform of 
the tool... the smaller the area of impact 



the greater the efficiency of the blow 
(Hayes and Lancaster 1975:149-150). 

Angularity is not the only hammerstone shape 
reported. Witness Kluckhohn's statement that, 
"Unworked cobblestones were used for temporary 
hammers" (Kluckhohn 1971:175). Haury (1976:279) 
has a specific category for spheroidal hammerstones, 
and most sites list hammerstones made from river 
cobbles, an obvious spheroidal or at least round 
form. In fact, a recent artifact analysis form obtained 
from the Office of Contract Archeology in 
Albuquerque declares (probably incorrectly) that only 
stones having broad round surfaces associated with 
battering are to be considered hammerstones. The 
point is that the morphology of the implement has 
always been the primary characteristic noted by 
investigators and the types of morphology explicitly 
recognized by them have been angular (edges) and 
spheroidal. Because the present analysis is geared 
towards a functional explanation and the mor- 
phologies reported seem to transect other variables 
such as material type, method of manufacture, and 
type of wear, I assume that the morphology of a 
hammerstone is probably its most distinctive 
characteristic. 

Given the importance of morphology, we may 
now come back to the discriminant analysis. The 
object in this case is to determine if such classes exist 
(i.e., morphological classes) and if so, what variables 
are most important in differentiating between the 
classes. 

The DISCRIMINANT program was first run 
using three of the morphology values as groups. 
These were angular, spheroidal, and discoidal. The 
value "slab" was not included because of its low 
frequency and because I thought that it was probably 
subsumed under the broader value of angular rather 
than as a separate and distinct value or class unto 
itself. Portions of the summary table from that first 
run are reproduced in Table 6.2. All variables were 
utilized and the stepwise method chosen was Wilks. 
As can be seen from the table, there are four main 
discriminating variables: weight, function, parent 
state, and technology of manufacture (hereafter 
referred to as technology). Material type, 
surprisingly, did not seem to be correlated with 
weight and function, or with morphology. This result 
did not seem quite satisfactory in that the function 
variable was subjectively assigned and often the basis 



954 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 6. 2. Results of first discriminant run. 



A. Summary Statistics. 

Step Variable 

Number Entered 



Removed 



F to Enter 
or Remove 



1 Weight 

2 Function 

3 Parent State 

4 Technology 

5 Percentages of 

Wear-Step Fracture 

_6 Material Type 



17.39854 
12.95191 
10.82182 
8.53900 

2.63864 
1.66054 



B. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients. 



Variable 



Function 1 



Function 2 



Weight 


0.63585 


-0.27871 


Material Type 


0.25776 


0.05058 


Parent State 


-0.36566 


-0.18442 


Technology 


0.38958 


0.30788 


Percentage of 
Wear-Step Fracture 


-0.20664 


0.22524 


Function 


0.14595 


0.83732 



for the assignment was dependent upon the 
morphology of the artifact. For example, discoidals 
were often called choppers if the edge angle was 
particularly steep. Therefore, it was decided to run 
the program again without including the variable 
function in the analysis. 

Table 6.3 is a summary of the second 
DISCRIMINANT run. If the sequence in which 
variables are entered into the analysis is examined, it 
can be seen that although the variable function has 
been deleted, the other variables with the most disc- 
riminating power (the higher the "F to Enter or 
Remove," the better the variable for differentiating 
between groups) remain unchanged from the first 
DISCRIMINANT run. This suggests that, indeed, a 
possible underlying relationship pertaining to the 
morphology of individual hammerstones has been 
isolated. The analysis has also derived two functions, 
the first of which seems strongly contingent upon the 
variable weight, while the second appears to 
represent a combination of types of wear. The 
Wilks' Lambda for function 1 is .8826; for function 
2 it is .9733. Since the lower Lambda indicates a 
stronger degree of discrimination, we might tender 
for the moment a possible interpretation involving 



weight as the primary characteristic associated with 
morphology although the types of wear may be 
suggestive of secondary characteristics. 

In addition to this evidence, the second run also 
presented some insight into the appropriateness of the 
three categories used to define the groups. 
Specifically, when examining the predicted results 
versus the group assignments made during the 
tabletop examination, we find that the computer had 
grouped 67.0 percent of angular hammerstones 
correctly, 57.1 percent of spheroidal, but only 26.3 
percent of discoidals (Table 6.3). This led me to 
believe the Group 3 might not be a particularly valid 
classificatory category; therefore, I decided to check 
this suspicion by initiating another DISCRIMINANT 
run using only the values of angular and spheroidal as 
the groups. The reason for this was the thought that 
perhaps the discoidal characteristic was secondary to 
the angular, i.e., all of the discoids would certainly 
have been called angular if it had not been decided 
that the regularity of the form warranted a separate 
category. Consequently, it seemed somewhat logical 
that if better prediction results could be obtained from 
an analysis involving only two categories of 
morphology, then there might be a stronger basis for 
postulating morphological distinctiveness among 
hammerstones; in this case, a dichotomous 
relationship between angularity and sphericity. So, 
as might be expected by now, a third DIS- 
CRIMINANT program was run using angular and 
spheroidal as the groups. 

The results of this run were the hoped for 
increase in prediction accuracy plus further 
confirmation of the association among the variables 
already identified as contributing the most to the 
distinctiveness between morphological categories 
(Table 6.4). In particular, it seems that the discoidal 
hammerstones are, in fact, merely a subset of 
angular. 

This presents a rather interesting problem, for 
if, in fact, those hammerstones in the original 
discoidal category cannot be adequately distinguished 
from "ordinary" angular hammerstones, then why 
their distinctive outline? The answer to this question 
probably lies in what Jelinek (1976:22) calls the 
"Frison Effect" (cf. Frison 1968:152). That is, the 
modification of an original tool form to a different 
form during use in a succession of tasks. A large 
number of the discoids were, as pointed out above, 



Hammerstones 955 



Table 6.3. Results of second discriminant run. 



A. Summary statistics. 



Variable 



Step 




F to Enter or 


Number 


Entered Removed Remove 


1 


Weight 


17.71092 


2 


Parent State 


10.55776 


3 


Technology 


7.97316 


4 


Percentage of 
Wear-Battering 


4.56390 


5 


Percentage of 
Wear 


2.93712 


6 


Percentage of 
Wear-Abrasion 


1 .73094 


7 


Percentage of 
Wear-Step Fracture 


1 .76327 


8 


Material Type 


1.51992 



B. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients. 



Variable 


Function 1 


Function 2 


Weight 


0.64993 


0.35090 


Material Type 


0.24316 


0.04743 


Parent State 


-0.34599 


0.24190 


Technology 


0.35136 


-0.26127 


Percentage of Wear 


-0.04800 


0.44913 


Percentage of Wear- 
Abrasion 


-0.25081 


0.34711 


Percentage of Wear- 
Battering 


-0.25081 


0.83676 


Percentage of Wear-Step 

Fracture 


-0.35741 


-0.22710 



C. Prediction Results 



Predicted Group Membership 



Actual Group 


Number of Cases 


Group 1 


Group 2 


Group 3 


Group 1 


639 


428 
67.0 


143 

22.4 


68 
10.6 


Group 2 


98 


31 
31.6 


56 
57.1 


11 
11.2 


Group 3 


38 


19 
50.0 


9 

23.7 


10 
26.3 


Ungrouped cases 


30 


23 
76.7 


1 
3.3 


6 

20.0 



Percent of "grouped" cases correctly classified: 63.74 percent. 



956 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 6.4. Results of third discriminant run. 



A. Summary Statistics. 
Step Variable 



F to Enter 



Number 


Entered 


Removed 


or Remove 


1 


Weight 




28.59593 


2 


Parent State 




19.76012 


3 


Technology 




14.96705 


4 


Material Type 




3.94888 


5 


Wear 




2.83204 


B. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients. 


Variable 




Function 1 




Weight 




-0.62003 




Material Type 


-0.25209 




Parent State 




0.37125 




Technology 




-0.39628 




Wear 




0.20998 




C. Prediction Results. 








Number of 

> Cases 


Predicted Group 
Membership 


Actual Grouj 


Group 1 


Group 2 


Group 1 


639 


438 
68.5 


201 
31.5 


Group 2 


98 


26 
26.5 


72 
73.5 


Ungrouped 


68 


52 
76.5 


16 
23.5 



Percent of "grouped" cases correctly classified: 69.20 percent. 

originally classified as choppers. This was one of the 
probable reasons that prediction results on Group 3 
(discoids) was most accurate during the first 
DISCRIMINANT run. In light of this, it seems 
reasonable to conclude that many of the discoidal 
hammerstones were originally choppers, but with 
extended use the functional edge for chopping became 
dulled and was either discarded or reutilized as a 
hammer. This is a question which deserves more 
attention than it has received here because it has 
implications for the amount of tool curation practiced. 
Hopefully, a more conclusive examination can be 
presented in future analyses. For the moment then, 
it will be assumed that discoidals are essentially 
angular hammerstones regardless of their original 
morphological function. 

Having thus postulated that the distinctiveness of 
discoidal hammerstones lies in prior functional 
contexts, we turn again to the question of why 
angular hammerstones are different from spheroidal 
ones. In this regard, it was thought that 



CROSSTABS would most likely be the place to 
search for the reasons behind the high correlations 
between morphology and the variables weight, parent 
state, and technology. Before proceeding to that 
aspect of the analysis, however, I thought it was 
important to consider one more feature of the 
DISCRIMINANT runs. 

This involved the consistently low dis- 
criminating power of the variable material type on all 
discriminant runs. To me, this variable seemed to 
correlate highly with morphology and that it should 
not show up in the statistical output was puzzling. 
The first attempt to confirm the inadequacy of 
material types in discriminating for morphology 
involved still another DISCRIMINANT run in which 
the various material types were lumped into four 
basic groups: chert, petrified wood, sandstone, and 
quartzite. I thought that this might have some 
influence on the discriminant results (Table 6.5). 
Consequently, a new tact was adopted in order to 
crosscheck the previous results. Again, a 
DISCRIMINANT program was run, this time using 
the recoded material types as the groups among 
which were to be discriminated. The results are 
summarized in Table 6.6 and are very interesting for 
two reasons: 

1) They show morphology to be of little value 
in predicting material type. 

2) They show parent state and weight to be the 
strongest discriminating variables for material type. 

The observation that has already been made that 
morphology and material type are not highly 
correlated, seems confirmed. In reality, the situation 
is not so clear-cut. The problem is not related to the 
consistently high association of parent state to 
morphology and to material type, but the lack of 
association between the latter two. One possible 
reason for this might be in Dean's concept of the 
"surrogate" variable (Judge, personal communication 
1977). In effect, one variable can be subsumed 
under another. In this case, it seemed that either 
parent state was surrogate to material type or vice 
versa. The rationale for this viewpoint was that 
Warren's type code accounts for both cobbles and 
silicified wood which are, of course, two of the four 
parent state values. Intuitively, I felt that material 
type was surrogate to parent state, but the statistical 
analysis seemed to indicate otherwise since parent 
state always weighed more heavily. Yet another 



Hammerstones 957 



Table 6. 5. Results of fourth discriminant run. 

A. Summary Statistics. Material Types Recorded. 



Variable 



Step 
Number 


Entered 


Removed 


F to Enter or 
Remove 


1 


Weight 




17.71092 


2 


Parent State 




10.55776 


3 


Technology 




7.97316 


4 


Percentage of Wear- 
Battering 




4.56390 


5 


Wear 




2.93712 


6 


Percentage of Wear- 
Abrasion 




1.73094 


7 


Percentage of Wear- 
Step Fracture 




1.76227 


8 


Material Type 




1 .07289 



B. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients. 



Variable 


Function 1 


Function 2 


Weight 


-0.67139 


-0.39131 


Material Type 


0.13990 


-0.17451 


Parent State 


0.48548 


-0.18550 


Technology 


-0.35782 


0.24590 


Wear 


0.07770 


-0.44550 


Percentage of Wear- 
Abrasion 


0.23884 


-0.33612 


Percentage of Wear- 
Battering 


0.36252 


-0.80057 


Percentage of Wear- 
Step Fracture 


0.37487 


0.24700 



C. Prediction Results 



Predicted Group Membership 



Actual Group 


Number of Cases 


Group 1 


Group 2 


Group 3 


Group 1 


639 


416 
65.1 


145 

22.7 


78 
12.2 


Group 2 


98 


23 
23.5 


58 
59.2 


17 
17.3 


Group 3 


30 


20 
66.7 


4 
13.3 


6 
20.0 



Percent of "grouped" cases correctly classified: 63.35 percent. 



958 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 6. 6. Results of fifth discriminant run. 
Material types as groups. 



Variable 



Step 
Number 


Entered Removed 


F to Enter 
or Remove 


1 


Parent State 


187.88557 


2 


Weight 


21.46497 


3 


Wear 


9.08524 


4 


Technology 


4.11561 


5 


Percentage of Wear-Abrasion 


3.19504 


6 


Cortex 


2.27699 


7 


Morphology 


2.14993 


8 


Percentage of Wear-Battering 


1 .76099 


9 


Percentage of Wear-Step 
Fracture 


1.69065 



DISCRIMINANT program was run using 
morphology as the groups but eliminating parent state 
from consideration. 

The results of this run seem to confirm a 
suspected surrogate relationship for it can be noted in 
Table 6.7 that material type immediately assumes a 
discriminating power not evidenced in previous runs. 
In fact, material type has assumed the rank position 
of parent state, although not its degree of 
predictiveness. In light of this, it appears reasonable 
to suggest that parent state is surrogate to material 
type. This interpretation has some significance in the 

Table 6. 7. Results of sixth discriminant run. 
Parent state removed from the 
analysis. 

Variable 



Step 

Number 


Entered Removed 


F to Enter or 

Remove 


1 


Weight 


17.49100 


2 


Material Type 


9.02682 


3 


Technology 


7.09201 


4 


Percentage of Wear-Battering 


5.21856 


5 


Wear 


3.25687 


6 


Percentage of Wear-Abrasion 


2.27976 


7 


Percentage of Wear-Step 
Fracture 


1.75650 


8 


Cortex 


1.19960 



determination of the attributes which cause the two 
morphological groups to differ statistically. 

The variables contributing the most to the 
differentiation between angular and spheroidal have 
already been identified as weight, parent state, and 
technology. To further clarify precisely why these 
contribute so much, various combinations of the 
variables weight, parent state, technology, and 
morphology were input into a CROSSTABS program. 
As might be expected, in every case the Chi-square 
statistic produced significant levels of 0.0, indicating 
extremely strong correlations. This, however, did 
not reveal why such good correlations were found. 

Finding the "why" essentially involved a 
detailed examination of individual cell frequencies in 
the CROSSTABS contingency tables. Because 
further explication of this particular procedure would 
be tedious and of little informative value, I will 
simply summarize those differences which are 
thought to have resulted in the statistical recognition 
of two hammerstone classes. 

These classes, if it has not become apparent by 
now, are angular and spheroidal. They differ from 
each other in a very basic manner. Indeed, the 
difference is explicit in the working definitions used 
to assign morphological values; angular hammer- 
stones have edges, spheroidal hammerstones are more 
or less round with broad curvilinear surfaces. These 
values have been isolated statistically by comparing 
attributes other than morphology and, hence, we are 
forced to look for differences that are not so obvious. 

The first of these is weight, the variable which 
shows the most consistency in discriminating between 
the two morphological classes. Essentially, the cell 
frequencies reveal that within certain weight classes 
there are different proportions, the outstanding of 
which is a concentration of spheroids in the 401-900 
gm range. Table 6.8 gives specific cell frequencies, 
but it might be noted that the gross pattern seems to 
be as follows: angular hammerstones make up about 
92 percent of all hammers in the 1-200 gm range, 
about 80 percent of the 201-400 gm range, around 60 
percent of the 401-900 gm range, and 100 percent of 
all hammerstones over 900 gm (Figure 6.2). 

The implication seems to be that tasks 
requiring spheroidal (assuming that spheroids are 
functionally different from angular) hammers were 



Table 6.8. Cross-tabulations of weight by morphology. 



Hammerstones 959 



Weight 




Angular 


Spheroid 


Discoidal 


Slab 


Row Total 


1 to 100 gm 


3 

1.7 

75.8 

0.4 


142 
78.5 
22.1 
17.5 


11 

6.1 
10.9 

1.4 


16 

8.8 
40.0 

2.0 


9 

5.0 

34.6 

1.1 


181 
22.3 


101 to 200 gm 


1 

0.3 

25.0 

0.1 


299 
84.9 
46.6 
36.8 


25 

7.1 
24.8 

3.1 


15 

4.3 
37.5 

1.8 


12 

3.4 
46.2 

1.5 


352 
43.3 


201 to 300 gm 


- 


112 
73.7 
17.4 
13.8 


29 
19.1 
28.7 
3.6 


7 

4.6 

17.5 

0.9 


4 

2.6 

15.4 

0.5 


152 
18.7 


301 to 400 gm 


- 


45 

77.6 
7.0 
5.5 


12 

20.7 

11.9 

1.5 


1 

1.7 
2.5 
0.1 


- 


58 
7.1 


401 to 500 gm 


- 


14 

50.0 
2.2 
1.7 


13 

46.4 

12.9 

1.6 


1 

3.6 
2.5 
9.1 


- 


28 
3.4 


501 to 600 gm 


- 


10 

62.5 
1.6 
1.2 


6 
37.5 
5.9 
0.7 


- 


- 


16 
2.0 


601 to 700 gm 


- 


4 
66.7 
0.6 
0.5 


2 
33.3 
2.0 
0.2 


- 


- 


6 
0.7 


701 to 800 gm 


- 


6 
60.0 
0.9 
0.7 


3 

30.0 
3.0 
0.4 


- 


1 
10.0 
3.8 
0.1 


10 
1.2 


801 to 900 gm 


- 


3 
100.0 
0.5 
0.4 


- 


- 


- 


3 

0.4 


901 to 1000 gm 


- 


4 
100.0 
0.6 
0.5 


- 


- 


- 


4 
0.5 


1001 to HOOgm 


- 


3 
100.0 
0.5 
0.4 


- 


- 


- 


3 

0.4 


Column Total 
Percent 


4 
0.5 


642 
79.0 


101 
12.4 


40 
4.9 


26 

3.2 


813 

100.0 



" Data presented in columns as counts, row percentages, column percentages, total percentages. 
Chi-square = 92.56151 with 40 degrees of freedom. 
Significance = 0.0000. 
Cramer's V = 0.16871. 
Contingency Coefficient = 0.31971. 



960 Chaco Artifacts 



CO 


100 


LU 




7 




o 


90 


h- 




a: 


80 


LU 




^ 


70 


^ 




< 




X 


60 


_j 




< 




h- 


50 


o 




h- 




LL 


40 


O 




LU 


30 


o 




< 




h- 


20 


z 




UJ 




o 


10 


q: 




LU 




Q_ 






m 















1 1 






IT 



■ 






I 

1 



3 
1- 






•■:■::■:■;■ 



II 



i 

i 



■ 



w 



1 



1 



i 



II 






I 

■ 
■ 

.1- 



WEIGHT CATEGORIES 



10 11 



Figure 6. 2. Angular hammerstones by weight class. 



Hammerstones 961 



more likely, proportionately , to require a medium- 
sized implement. There are other interesting patterns 
which emerge such as 94.5 percent of the discoidal 
subset occurring below 400 gm, but the fact that 35.7 
percent of all spheroids weigh more than 400 gm, 
while only 6.9 percent of angular hammers fall in this 
range seems the most obvious difference. More 
subtle differences may be influencing the statistical 
analysis but if so, this is not apparent at the moment. 

When we turn to the importance of parent state, 
we must keep in mind that Values 3 and 4 of the 
variable morphology should be considered as angular 
(Value 1). This aside, it can be noted that there are 
two important correlations: 

1) Spheroids have an almost even chance of 
being cobbles. 

2) Cobbles show a 72.4 percent occurrence in 
the angular category. 

It might also be noted that petrified wood occurs 
predominantly in the angular class (93.1 percent) as 
does the value other (85.4 percent). The tentative 
conclusion seems to be that the primary difference 
between angular and spheroid, as reflected in parent 
state, is the observation that 44.9 percent of all 
spheroids were originally cobbles (Table 6.9). 

The final variable with good discriminating 
power, technology, can be accounted for fairly easily 
with the aid of CROSSTABS. Examination of cell 
frequencies reveals that spheroids are almost always 
either unmodified or shaped by other. Personal ob- 
servation suggests that rarely, if ever, did other refer 
to anything but battering. As for angular hammer- 
stones, they result from flaking, battering or selection 
for naturally occurring edges, but when intentionally 
modified, flaking is the prevalent mode. It is also in- 
teresting, though not extremely pertinent to the prob- 
lem at hand, that 44.2 percent of all hammerstones 
are unmodified (Table 6.10). In conclusion, it would 
seem that the way in which hammerstones are 
modified is related to their final form, specifically in 
that spheroids are usually shaped by battering. 

To bring this tortuous narration to a quick and 
deserved end, I simply state that statistically, as well 
as intuitively, there do seem to be two mor- 
phologically distinct classes of hammerstones which 
can be differentiated on the basis of weight, parent 
state, and technology of manufacture. 



Function 

The stated objective for developing a classi- 
ficatory system of hammerstones was to provide an 
aid in determining whether hammerstones could be 
functionally differentiated. It might be asked now if 
the dichotomous grouping postulated in the preceding 
portion of the paper does indeed shed some 
proverbial light on the question of functionality. 

As determined so far, the morphological 
dichotomy isolated in the analysis only suggests 
functional differences; it does not reveal what the 
nature of such differences might be. Haury seems to 
have anticipated this problem without the benefit of 
extended statistical verification of his classes: 

...it appears that the sharp edges on 
angular stone and the softer contours of a 
rounded one may have been preferred for 
different kinds of work. The latter was 
probably best adapted for reducing bulk 
by pecking, as in the shaping of a mano, 
while the former was best suited for 
coarse work where regular scarring was 
not a factor or was desirable, as in the 
sharpening of a metate (Haury 1976:279). 

The author (Chapman) of the previously cited 
OCA analysis form, is more general in his thoughts 
but also thinks that form may be related to task: 

Hammerstones exhibiting rather broad and 
relatively flat surfaces can be assumed to 
have been used in contexts which did not 
necessitate a great degree of control over 
the specific locus of force application. 
Essentially, lenticular cobbles, exhibiting 
restricted areas of battering along their 
highly convex ridges or ends, might, on 
the other hand, be assumed to have been 
used in contexts which necessitated a con- 
siderable degree of control over the 
specific locus of force application. These 
latter contexts could be expected to 
include flint knapping usage of the 
hammerstone (Chapman 1977:413). 

These two passages explicitly relate the 
morphology of the hammerstone to a type of need. 
There is, however, another line of thought of which 
we must be cognizant. This is the idea that the 



962 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 6.9. Cross tabulation of parent state by morphology.' 



Parent State 


Wear 


Angular 


Spheroid 


Discoidal 


Slab 


Row Total 


Cortex 


2 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


2 




100.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 






50.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 






0.2 


- 


- 


- 


- 


0.2 


Cobble 


- 


142 


44 


10 


- 


196 




- 


72.4 


22.4 


5.1 


- 






- 


22.2 


44.9 


26.3 


- 






- 


17.6 


5.5 


1.2 


- 


24.3 


Tabular 


- 


1 


- 


- 


1 


2 




- 


50.0 


- 


- 


50.0 






- 


0.2 


- 


- 


3.8 






- 


0.1 


- 


- 


0.1 


0.2 


Petrified Wood 


2 


35.4 


31 


26 


25 


448 




0.4 


81.3 


6.9 


5.8 


5.6 






50.0 


57.0 


31.6 


68.4 


96.2 






0.2 


45.2 


3.9 


3.2 


3.1 


55.7 


Other 


- 


132 


23 


2 


- 


157 




- 


84.1 


14.6 


1.3 


- 






- 


20.7 


23.5 


5.3 


- 






— 


16.4 


2.9 


0.2 


—^ 


19.5 


Total 


4 


678 


98 


38 


26 


805 


Percent 


0.5 


79.4 


12.2 


4.7 


3.2 


100.0 



* Data in columns are presented as counts, row percentage, column percentage, and total percentage. 
Chi-square = 470.34180 with 16 degrees of freedom. 
Significance = 0.0. 
Cramer's V = 0.38219. 
Contingency coefficient = 0.60729. 
Number of missing observations = 8. 



spheroidal hammers are simply angular hammerstones 
which through extended use have lost their 
effectiveness and have been subsequently discarded. 
Judd provides two good examples of this reasoning. 
In discussing modern replication experiments he 
notes, "...Gill found that the effectiveness of a stone 
hammer was materially reduced when its faceted 
surface became smooth through use; that it was easier 
to make a new hammer than to refracture an old one" 
(Judd 1954:118). In defining a hammerstone he says, 
"When the rough edges were worn away, the hammer 
was discarded" (Judd 1954: 1 17). Other examples are 
numerous (Kidder 1932:61, Hayes and Lancaster 
1975:149, Judd 1959:134-135). 



A problem then, which is basic to a functional 
interpretation, is whether spheroids are functionally 
distinct from angular hammers or whether they are 
merely exhausted forms of angular hammerstones. 
For the Chaco material, we can apply two lines of 
circumstantial evidence to this question. The first is 
the logical proposition that if spheroidal hammers 
result from exhaustion of angular ones, then it would 
seem evident that it was easier, or more efficient, to 
completely utilize a hammer than it was to create a 
new one (cf. Judd above). The preponderance of 
angular hammerstones (87.5 percent of the total 
sample), however, suggests that this is not so, that in 
fact, the total exhaustion of hammerstones was not 



Hammerstones 963 



Table 6. 10. Cross-tabulation of parent state by technology of manufacture." 



Parent State 



Morphology 



Shaped by 
Flaking 



Shaped by 
Other 



Cortex 



Cobble 



Tabular 



2 
100.0 
100.0 

0.2 



81 

41.3 
28.4 
10.1 



20 
10.2 
12.3 
2.5 



Petrified wood 



Slab 



Total 
Percent 



. 


151 


no 


- 


33.7 


24.6 


- 


53.0 


67.9 


- 


18.8 


13.7 


_ 


53 


32 


. 


33.8 


20.4 


. 


18.6 


19.8 


_; 


6.6 


4.0 


2 


285 


162 


0.2 


35.4 


20.1 



Shaped 


Row Total 


- 


2 


- 


0.2 


95 


196 


48.5 




26.7 




11.8 


24.3 


2 


2 


100.0 




0.6 




0.2 


0.2 


187 


448 


41.7 




52.5 




23.2 


55.7 


72 


157 


45.9 




20.2 




8.9 


19.5 


356 


805 


44.2 


100.0 



* Data in column is presented as counts, row percentage, column percentage, and total percentage. 
Chi-square = 825.41284 with 12 degrees of freedom. 
Significance = 0.0. 
Cramer's V = 0.58462. 
Contingency coefficient = 0.71152. 
Number of missing observations = 8. 



common. The second shaky line of reasoning is 
concerned with the frequencies of spheroidals by site. 
As Table 6.11 shows, the proportion of spheroids to 
angulars is somewhat constant or more precisely, 
present, which in turn suggests a constant "desire for 
spheroidal hammers." These propositions are put 
forth with full knowledge that we lack information 
concerning length of use, nature of the tasks 
involved, and lifespan of different materials under 
different conditions of use. Despite the lack of such 
insight, however, I feel at least partially justified in 
suggesting that the current state of the data indicates 
functional differences as responsible for mor- 
phological differences. 

This leads into the sticky question of what 
specific tasks hammerstones were used for. 
Archeologists always seem to expand their 
descriptions of hammerstones through ethnographic 
analogy. Hence, hammerstones were used in 
maintenance of ground stone implements, flint 
knapping, pounding meat, hides and pigment, 
breaking up bone, and shaping building stones. 



Table 6.11. 


Percentages of angular 
and spheroidal hammer- 
stones by site. 


Site 


Angular 


Spheroidal 


29SJ 423 


85.4 


14.6 


29SJ 299 


56.7 


43.3 


29SJ 628 


81.1 


18.9 


29SJ 724 


93.8 


6.3 


29SJ 629 


93.4 


6.6 


29SJ 1360 


76.3 


23.7 


29SJ 627 


82.2 


17.8 


29SJ 389 


95.4 


4.6 



Almost certainly these suggestions are correct. As to 
what hammerstone shapes or weights or material 
types can be correlated with specific tasks, I simply 
cannot say at this point. Probably we are indeed 
dealing with a situation where the general purpose 
nature of the tool precludes attributing that tool to 



964 Chaco Artifacts 



only one type of activity. I am optimistic, however, 
that as yet there are undefined functional differences 
between angular and spheroidal and once these have 
been delineated, more information pertinent to the 
question of specific task-related functions will be 
forthcoming. 

Source Areas 

Identification of source areas for materials 
represented by Chacoan artifacts is one of the prime 
goals of on-going research at the Chaco Center. 
Basic to this primacy are the subsequent implications 
for direction and intensity of prehistoric importation 
of objects within the canyon. Analysis of the stone 
material from which hammerstones were made 
indicates that locally available (within 5 km of the 
canyon) materials comprise the bulk of the hammers 
but imported materials generally accounted for around 
25 percent or more of the hammerstones by site. 
The purpose of this section of the analysis is purely 
descriptive and to that end Table 6.12 has been 
constructed. 

Temporal Variation 

One very important aspect of this study is 
monitoring possible change in hammerstone 
characteristics. Variation through time has great 
relevance, especially if such change can be related to 
technology. 

Changes in the technology of tools will 
arise in response to a technological need 
and will be directly related to changes in 
subsistence patterns and patterns in 
communication (Martin and Plog 
1973:215). 

This is the systemic view of culture proposed by 
Binford (1972a:22) in which culture is seen as the 
articulation of a number of functioning subsystems. 
According to this approach, the understanding of any 
one subsystem or component has the inherent capacity 
to give meaning to all the other subsystems with 
which it is articulated. In theory at least, any 
subsystem can be expected to give insight into the 
nature of other subsystems; in reality, that 
expectation is compromised by the extent to which 
the individual researcher is capable of extracting the 
necessary information. 



Several changes involving the variables material 
type, parent state, and morphology are postulated 
here with a degree of caution. To begin with, I have 
already observed that quartzite hammerstones show a 
decrease through time (Figure 6.1). Observation has 
also shown a proportional increase in petrified wood 
from early to late sites. Still further observation 
reveals that concomitant with the decrease in quartzite 
is a decreased selection for cobbles as a 
morphological raw form for hammerstones. Because 
the cobbles involved are almost always quartzite, it 
naturally occurs to ask if the decreased proportions of 
quartzite hammerstones might not be the result of a 
decreased selection for cobbles, or vice versa. 
Rephrasing this question gives the following 
hypothesis: the decrease in quartzite hammerstones 
is due to a decreased selection for cobbles. To test 
this hypothesis, we need to make the assumption that 
a selection for cobbles would indicate a preference 
for distinctive morphological attributes, i.e., round, 
broad surfaces. Given this assumption, we would not 
expect cobbles to be modified. This, however, is not 
the case. Nearly 73 percent of all cobbles are flaked 
to produce edges or are naturally angular (Tables 6.9 
and 6.10). The hypothesis is, therefore, rejected. 
The important implication of this is that the quartzite 
decrease is indicative of a decreased selection for 
quartzite, not its form. 

The next question might well be whether or not 
this decrease is unintentional or deliberate. In other 
words, are the prehistoric Chacoans depleting a local 
resource or are they purposely choosing not to make 
hammerstones from quartzite. Essential to this 
question is establishing that a local quartzite resource 
was available. William Gillespie, having recently 
completed the lithic analysis for the Chaco Outlier 
Survey, indicates that quartzite cobbles not only were 
available locally in prehistoric times, but that even 
today there are abundant quantities within easy access 
of the canyon, especially at the site of Bis'sa ani 
(Gillespie, personal communication 1977). This, in 
itself, should be enough to suggest that the quartzite 
decrease was not caused by local depletion but one 
further bit of evidence can be noted. According to 
Warren's lithic code, a number of the hammerstone 
materials were coming from the San Juan Basin. 
Importation, as noted, increased through time. In 
combination with the fact that the San Juan River is 
an excellent source of quartzite cobbles, this would 
seem to suggest that even if local supplies were being 



Hammerstones 965 



,«s 



no 



'« 



CO ' 



t£ 



00 
<S 

o 

CO 

On 



On 

on 

<S 

*\ 

to 

On 



CI 

00 

On 



8 
■a 

o 



3 



NO -H 



NO 


r- r- 


NO 


O ' 


NO 


• ^r 



no t— ro no no f-; 

OHfidd ■ -« 



•h -h rn O 



t^ r- r~ r-- ■* t~; t_ r-; 

dddd-d-d 



»h d 



On 



d 



odd — -4 -4 © © 



r>; ■* -. © 

NT) -H (S W1 






— c I oo < — « rt 



N o mnri 


vn 


o r- 


— < in <s no -h 


1 r> 


1 NT) OO 



vq r-; 

<s d 



d 



r- —i 

d -^ 



■* 00 

d — 



in Nf n 1^ -< * Nf| 



• — — i ' o 



1 't 

-^ d 



oo tt —< r~ ■* r~; 

*d '-**©© 



en 

I NO 



oo oo 

1 OO ' 00 



"5 



On 
NO 



1 wi 



t- On ■* 


NO 


t~ •* On 


i-l no O. 


■ 00 ' 


1 ' rt Cl«1 



«- <"•: 



ci rn no 






r- 

NO 



c> 



o, m en 
o. en co 



O po ro r- 









1 <s ri 



-h Tf no en 



o o o 

o o o 

■a -a 

o o 

Z 2 



(0 OS flj 03 M 03 w 

■J3 "T3 (d A Cd (d C9 (0 *3 03 "^3 03 63 CO ~J3 ~3 03 C9 03 03 *p3 03 03 03 ^3 03 03 03 03 03 "3 "3 "^3 03 CO *3 CO 03 03 A3 "3 03 03 

llJJJIJJlJlJJJlljlljJljjJIjJIjjilljjlJjJjljJ 



o o 

■a "a 



~ -a ~ 



-HO-H<SO-H<SfiOrONo — OO-HfSfOOOOfS — ^wiO-ntiftNOO^ <S'rOO-H<SNr>00>000 
^5'*5Nr)>^ ) >ri>r>t~r~r~ONO---H-H--<Stn^'*rorotSNOO«S(Sr4<SOOOONr>OQQOOr~<SOO 
©©©©©©©©©©©©-« — -* — -h — -h — -hc^CnI^n© — -H-H-H-^<N<Sc-l<S00©OO©c->cn«->-^(S 

_,rtH-(-H-HrtrtrtH-<HH«rt-l-<rtrtrtrt«rt-lrtNrtNN(NlNNN(SN*^**^^t«lU1 



o 

03 






•a 

IB 



966 Chaco Artifacts 



exhausted, the ability to obtain these elsewhere was 
not. Consequently, we might conclude that the basic 
cause for the drop in quartzite proportions was 
related to an intentional selection for alternative raw 
material, rather than the exhaustion of a locally 
available resource. 

I accept that the decrease in quartzite was 
related to the increase in petrified wood. If this was 
so, then we need to know if petrified wood merely 
replaced quartzite and assumed the same function, or 
whether there was a technological shift requiring a 
different material for hammers. 

If we assume that the hypothesis concerning 
local depletion is more or less correct, then we might 
logically propose that replacement without functional 
correlates is incorrect because that would be a 
capricious change and capriciousness cannot explain 
causation; there are usually reasons for causes. The 
resulting conclusion is that quartzite was not actually 
replaced by petrified wood but rather the need for 
quartzite decreased as some functional change 
requiring petrified wood increased. 

This conclusion is, however, without much 
foundation unless it can be demonstrated that 
technological differences do indeed exist between 
quartzite and petrified wood, especially material type 
1110. That, unfortunately, is easier to contemplate 
than demonstrate. Certain quantifications can be 
produced but they are in large measure intuitive and 
so lack the desired strength to show differences and 
similarities. Nevertheless, some simple observations 
may be helpful. The first attribute of significance 
might be hardness. On the Moh's scale, quartzite 
rates between 6.5 and 7.0 (Toll 1976:7), a figure 
comparable to the range shown for material type 
1110 as evidenced in experimentation by Marcia 
Truell (personal communication). A similar 
relationship exists with the variable weight, in that a 
CROSSTABS survey (not verified statistically) seems 
to show that the proportions of quartzite 
hammerstones in various weight categories is about 
the same for proportions of material type 1 1 10. In 
these respects, there seems to be little appreciable 
difference. 

Other attributes likewise seem to show little 
difference. For example, the vast majority of both 
types have angular morphologies. Still another and 
weaker similarity could be the fracture characteristics 



of quartzite and material type 1110; quartzite flakes, 
but not easily; material type 1 1 10 is distinctive in not 
having conchoidal fracture. These are inconclusive; 
they do not hint at particular differences between the 
material types under discussion other than their 
physical-chemical structure nor do they suggest 
strong similarities. 

Based upon my handling of the actual material 
in question, I believe there is a definite difference. 
Though unsubstantiated, I think it is a matter of 
density and precision — density because quartzite 
seems to be "tougher" than petrified wood; precision 
because petrified wood can provide (and seems to 
have) smaller, more manageable edges for 
percussion. In short, I believe differences exist but 
lack the means at present for delineating them. 

Although unable to pinpoint specific physical 
differences between quartzite and petrified wood, it 
might still be profitable to attempt to discover 
functional activities with which they could be 
associated. Such an endeavor might be counted as 
suspect on the basis that the actual physical 
differences relative to technology have not been 
demonstrated to any appreciable extent. Nonetheless, 
circumstantial reasoning may provide clues to 
possible answers and as such has some heuristic 
merit. For example, a number of authors have 
identified quartzite as a preferred material for 
hammerstones used in flint knapping. In his 
discussion of the physics of fracture processes, Speth 
notes: 

We will assume the core is chert and the 
indenter is fine-grained quartzite. This 
last assumption does not seem 
unreasonable when dealing with hard- 
hammer percussion because modern flint 
workers often specifically recommend 
quartzite as a suitable material and 
quartzite cobbles, believed to have been 
used as hammerstones, are commonly 
found in archeological deposits (Speth 
1972:39). 

In two separate papers, Knowles (1944, 1953) 
details his own knapping experimentation and why he 
used quartzite hammerstones: 

1) Its (quartzite) weight and toughness and the 
fact that it is a good flaker. 



Hammerstones 967 



2) Its range of size. 

3) Its compact size. 

4) Its convenient shape. 

5) Its ubiquity. 

From ethnographic accounts, we find Cushing's 
(1919:366) somewhat idealized description of flint 
knapping in which the hammer had to be a "tough, 
granular stone" and Malik's (1959:163) docu- 
mentation that in Stone Age cultures of India, flint 
knapping was accomplished by means of white 
quartzite hammers. 

The gist of the preceding paragraph should be 
apparent; quartzite is both reported and hypothesized 
to be an integral component in chipping stone, 
specifically chert or chalcedonic materials. While 
this cannot be proven, it does suggest a way, perhaps 
plausible, for interpreting the observed shift from 
quartzite to petrified wood predominance in 
hammerstone materials. That interpretation is 
relatively simple; if quartzite is essential to flint 
knapping, then its decline suggests a decline in that 
activity. Interesting in this regard is the decrease in 
chert through time, especially since most chert 
hammers seem to be exhausted cores. 

The test of this idea is probably impossible 
without correlation with other data not yet available, 
such as the ongoing lithic analysis. Alternatively, 
though, we might also suggest that petrified wood 
was used in manufacturing chipped stone, but in the 
latter stages of the process— that which involved more 
precise percussion control — rather than the primary 
stages where quartzite might have been most effective 
in reducing bulk material as suggested by Knowles 
(1944:118). This would in turn suggest that although 
we find that through time more and more bulk 
reduction took place elsewhere, the "blanks" or 
whatever, were imported and the final stages of 
production occurred in the canyon. That proposition, 
of course, borders on pure speculation and is, 
therefore, hardly acceptable. If, however, either of 
these two propositions can be tested then it may be 
that speculation will metamorphose into probability. 

The quartzite replacement problem is not the 
only temporal issue. The change in imported 
materials used as hammers was mentioned before. 
Essentially, chert shows a gradual increase through 
29SJ 724 with a gradual tapering off thereafter 
although there is a slight anomalous jump at 29SJ 



1360 (Figure 6.1). The basic observation is that 
imported materials constitute around 25 percent or 
better of all hammerstones at each site. 

The peak at 29SJ 724 becomes particularly 
interesting when compared with other sorts of 
evidence. For instance, a look at individual material 
types shows that 1112 (dark wood) increases 
proportionally until 29SJ 724, then like imported 
material in general, it drops off. In fact, the drop in 
imported material seems to be accounted for 
primarily by the drop in material type 1112. This 
pattern is replicated by other correlations between 
material type and the time period represented by 29SJ 
724 and 29SJ 629. 

In Table 6.12 diversity in material types is 
greatest at this period (A.D. 1000s), especially 
among the cherts. We also find that quartzite cobbles 
are proportionately stable through 29SJ 724, at which 
point they suddenly drop. Conversely, material type 
1110, which is thought to have replaced quartzite, 
also is proportionately consistent until Pueblo I, e.g., 
at 29SJ 724, when it skyrockets upward. Finally, 
Figure 6.1 shows that at 29SJ 724 and 29SJ 629, 
there is a real drop in the percentages of angular 
hammerstones which picks up again at 29 S J 627. 

It does not seem possible at this time to 
integrate coherently these several variations through 
time; that must wait until an additional analysis is 
completed. As a guide to further research, however, 
we might note that the changes seen at sites in Chaco 
Canyon in hammerstone characteristics seem to be at 
least superficially related to the transition period 
between Basketmaker III and Pueblo I that Plog 
(1974) has described for the Hay Hollow Valley in 
Arizona. This transition phase is characterized by 
technological change, population growth, diversity in 
material culture, and "experimentation. " It might be 
well to keep this in mind as a jumping off place for 
further interpretation. This is very important in that 
it pertains to the question of whether the "Chaco 
Phenomenon" was a unique sequence, or whether 
changes in the canyon follow similar developments 
elsewhere in the Southwest. 

Spatial Distribution 

Spatial distribution is one of the major sources 
of evidence for inferences as to internal site 
utilization. Because this report covers a number of 



968 Chaco Artifacts 
Table 6. 13. Distribution of hammerstones by provenience. 







Provenience 








Total 


Site Number 


Provenience 


Number 


Level Category 


Level Number 


Morphology* 


Number 


29SJ 423 


Surface 


1 


1 


- 


3A, IS 


4 




Pithouse 


1 


1 


_ 


IS 


1 




Pithouse 


2 


- 


1 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


2 


2 


1 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


2 


8 


1 


1A 


1 




Great Kiva 


1 


1 


. 


5A, IS 


6 




Great Kiva 


1 


2 


1 


5A, IS 


6 




Great Kiva 


1 


2 


2 


7A, 2S 


9 




Great Kiva 


1 


Floor 


3 


1A 


1 




Ramada 


1 


1 


. 


3A 


3 




Ramada 


1 


2 


1 


4A 


4 




Trash 


1 


2 


1 


3A 


3 


29SJ 724 


Pithouse 


1 


. 


_ 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


1 


2 


11 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


1 


Floor 


- 


1A 


1 




Room 


1 


2 


_ 


IS 


1 




Room 


1 


2 


1 


1A 


1 




Room 


1 


Floor 


1 


1A 


1 




Room 


10 


Floor 


1 


1A 


1 


29SJ 721 


Pithouse 


3 


- 


- 


1A 


1 


29SJ 299 


Surface 


2 


2 


1 


IS 


1 




Test Trench 


1 


2 


1 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


1 


2 


1 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


1 


Floor 


1 


3A 


3 




Pithouse 


2 


2 


2 


1A, IS 


2 




Pithouse 


2 


2 


3 


IS 


1 




Pithouse 


2 


2 


5 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


2 


2 


7 


IS 


1 




Pithouse 


2 


Floor 


1 


2A 


2 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


1 


2S 


2 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


3 


1A, IS 


2 




Pithouse 


4 


2 


- 


3A, IS 


4 




Pithouse 


4 


Floor 


1 


1A, IS 


2 




Pithouse 


5 


2 


4 


IS 


1 




Pithouse 


5 


Floor 


1 


2S 


2 




Room 


7 


2 


- 


1A, IS 


2 


29SJ 1360 


Surface 


3 


2 


_ 


1A 


1 




Surface 


5 


2 


- 


6A, IS 


7 




Room 


1 


2 


1 


1A 


1 




Room 


2 


2 


- 


2A 


2 




Room 


2 


2 


1 


2A 


2 




Room 


3 


2 


1 


IS 


1 




Room 


5 


2 


- 


1A 


1 




Room 


7 


2 


1 


1A 


1 




Kiva 




2 


_ 


IS 


1 




Kiva 




2 


1 


4A, IS 


5 




Kiva 




2 


2 


1A.2S 


3 




Kiva 




2 


3 


4A, 2S 


6 




Kiva 




2 


4 


3A, IS 


4 




Kiva 


2 


- 


1 


2A, IS 


3 




Kiva 


2 


2 


- 


1A 


1 




Kiva 


2 


2 


4 


1A 


1 




Kiva 


2 


Floor 


1 


6A, 2S 


8 




Plaza 


1 


2 


_ 


5A, 2S 


7 




Plaza 


1 


Floor 


3 


IS 


1 




Plaza 


2 


2 


- 


IS 


1 




Plaza 


3 


Floor 


2 


3A 


3 



Table 6.13. (continued) 



Hammerstones 969 







Provenience 








Total 


Site Number 


Provenience 


Number 


Level Category 


Level Number 


Morphology* 


Number 




Ramada 


2 


2 


- 


3A 


3 




Trash 


1 


2 


- 


1A, IS 


2 




Back dirt 


1 


1 


. 


1A 


1 




Back dirt 


1 


8 


. 


3A, IS 


4 




Back dirt 


2 


2 


- 


1A 


1 




Back dirt 


2 


8 


. 


1A 


1 




Back dirt 


4 


8 


- 


4A, 2S 


6 


29SJ 627 


Surface 


3 


1 


- 


1A 


1 




Test Trench 


1 


2 


1 


3A 


3 




Test Trench 


19 


2 


1 


2A, IS 


3 




Test Trench 


55 


2 


2 


1A 


1 




Pi thou se 


1 


2 


1 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


1 


2 


3 


3A 


3 




Pithouse 


1 


2 


7 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


1 


2 


8 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


2 


2 


3 


1A 


1 




Pithouse 


2 


Floor 


- 


IS 


1 




Room 


5 


Floor 


_ 


IS 


1 




Room 


5 


Floor 


1 


12A, 6S 


18 




Room 


5 


Subfloor 


1 


3A 


3 




Room 


5 


Subfloor 


3 


IS 


1 




Room 


6 


Floor 


1 


1A 


1 




Room 


7 


. 


2 


1A 


1 




Room 


8 


Floor 


1 


1A, IS 


2 




Room 


8 


Floor 


2 


1A 


1 




Room 


9 


Floor 


4 


1A 


1 




Room 


9 


Subfloor 


4 


IS 


1 




Room 


9 


Subfloor 


7 


1A 


1 




Room 


10 


Floor 


2 


3A 


3 




Room 


10 


Subfloor 


1 


2A, IS 


3 




Room 


10 


Subfloor 


2 


10 A, 2S 


12 




Room 


15 


2 


1 


IS 


1 




Room 


15 


2 


2 


1A 


1 




Room 


15 


Subfloor 


1 


1A 


1 




Room 


16 


Floor 


3 


1A, IS 


2 




Room 


17 


Floor 


- 


1A 


1 




Room 


17 


Floor 


1 


3A 


3 




Room 


18 


2 


1 


1A, IS 


2 




Room 


18 


2 


2 


1A, IS 


2 




Room 


19 


Floor 


. 


1A 


1 




Room 


19 


Floor 


1 


1A 


1 




Room 


23 


5 


1 


1A 


1 




Kiva 




2 


_ 


1A 


1 




Kiva 




2 


9 


3A 


3 




Kiva 




2 


11 


3A 


3 




Kiva 




2 


16 


2A 


2 




Kiva 




Floor 


1 


2A 


2 




Kiva 


2 


2 


5 


3A 


3 




Kiva 


2 


2 


7 


IS 


1 




Kiva 


2 


Floor 


1 


10A, 3S 


13 




Kiva 


3 


2 


6 


3A, 2S 


5 




Kiva 


3 


2 


8 


1A 


1 




Kiva 


4 


2 


5 


5A 


5 




Plaza 


1 


2 


_ 


1A 


1 




Plaza 


1 


2 


1 


1A 


1 




Plaza 


4 


2 


1 


1A, IS 


2 




Plaza 


4 


Subfloor 


1 


1A 


1 




Ramada 


1 


Floor 


1 


2A 


2 




Trash 


5 


2 


2 


6A 


6 




Trash 


6 


2 


1 


IS 


1 




Trash 


7 


2 


2 


1A 


1 


29SJ 628 


Surface 


3 


- 


. 


1A 


1 



970 Chaco Artifacts 
Table 6. 1 3. (continued) 







Provenience 










Total 


Site Number 


Provenience 


Number 


Level Category 


Level Number 


Morphology* 


Number 




Pithouse 


1 


2 


1 




IS 


1 




Pithouse 


1 


2 


2 


2A, 


IS 


3 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


1 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


2 


3A 




3 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


3 


8A, 


4S 


12 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


5 




IS 


1 




Pithouse 


3 


Floor 


1 


3A 




1 




Pithouse 


4 


- 


- 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


4 


- 


1 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


4 


2 


1 


3A 




3 




Pithouse 


4 


2 


2 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


4 


2 


4 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


4 


Floor 


1 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


5 


2 


1 


7A 




7 




Pithouse 


5 


2 


2 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


5 


2 


3 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


5 


2 


4 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


5 


Floor 


- 


2A 




2 




Pithouse 


5 


8 


1 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


7 


2 


- 




2S 


2 




Pithouse 


7 


2 


2 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


7 


2 


3 




IS 


1 




Pithouse 


7 


Floor 


1 


1A 




1 




Antechamber 


3 


2 


2 




IS 


1 




Antechamber 


4 


2 


1 


1A 




1 




Antechamber 


4 


2 


3 


1A 




1 




Antechamber 


4 


2 


4 


2A 




2 




Antechamber 


4 


Floor 


1 


1A 




1 


29SJ 629 


Surface 


10 


1 


_ 


2A 




2 




Surface 


26 


1 


. 


1A 




1 




Surface 


31 


1 


- 


1A 




1 




Surface 


36 


1 


- 


1A 




1 




Test Trench 


8 


2 


1 


5A 




5 




Test Trench 


21 


2 


7 




IS 


1 




Test Trench 


28 


2 


1 


1A 




1 




Test Trench 


53 


2 


1 




IS 


1 




Test Trench 


53 


2 


2 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


1 


2 


49(?) 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


1 


5 


ll(?) 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


1 


Floor 


1 




IS 


1 




Pithouse 


2 


2 


4 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


2 


5 


5 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


2 


5 


6 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


2 


Floor 


1 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


3 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


4 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


5 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


7 


9A, 


2S 


11 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


8 


8A, 


IS 


9 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


9 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


12 


6A 




6 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


13 


1A, 


2S 


3 




Pithouse 


3 


2 


36(?) 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


3 


5 


10(?) 


1A 




1 




Pithouse 


3 


Floor 


1 


5A, 


IS 


6 




Room 


2 


2 


2 


1A 




1 




Room 


2 


Floor 


1 


1A 




1 




Room 


3 


Floor 


1 


1A 




1 




Room 


3 


Subfloor 


2 


2A 




2 




Room 


4 


2 


1 


1A 




1 




Room 


7 


8 


- 


3A 




3 




Stone circle(?) 


1 


76(7) 


- 


1A 




1 



Table 6. 13. (continued) 



Hammerstones 971 







Provenience 










Total 


Site Number 


Provenience 


Number 


Level Category 


Level Number 


Morphology* 


Number 




Plaza 


8 


2 


2 


11A 




11 




Plaza 


9 


2 


4 


2A 




2 




Plaza 


14 


- 


1 


10A 




10 




Plaza 


14 


2 


1 


11A 




11 




Plaza 


14 


2 


3 


116A, 


7S 


123 




Plaza 


15 


2 


1 


1A 




1 




Plaza 


16 


2 


1 


1A 




1 




Plaza 


20 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Plaza 


20 


2 


3 


1A 




1 




Plaza 


22 


2 


3 


1A 




1 




Plaza 


35 


5 


1 


1A 




1 




Plaza 


35 


Floor 


1 


1A, 


IS 


2 




Plaza 


35 


Subfloor 


1 


2A 




2 




Ramada 


1 


. 


1 


3A 




3 




Ramada 


1 


2 


1 


1A 




1 




Trash 


58 


2 


1 


1A 




1 




Trash 


64 


2 


5 


1A 




1 




Trash 


65 


2 


4 


2A 




2 




Trash 


65 


2 


5 


3A 




3 




Trash 


65 


2 


6 


2A 




2 




Trash 


70 


2 


1 


1A 




1 




Trash 


70 


2 


3 


1A 




1 




Trash 


70 


2 


5 


1A 




1 




Trash 


76 


1 


- 


1A 




1 




Trash 


76 


2 


3 




IS 


1 




Trash 


82 


2 


5 


3A 




3 




Trash 


88 


1 


- 


1A 




1 




Trash 


88 


2 


2 


5A 




5 




Trash 


88 


2 


4 


1A 




1 


29SJ 389 


Room 


103 


5 


_ 


6A 




6 




Room 


103 


Floor 


7 


1A 




1 




Room 


104 


2 


- 


1A, 


2S 


3 




Room 


106 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Room 


114 


2 


- 


2A 




2 




Room 


145 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Room 


145 


5 


- 


1A 




1 




Room 


145 


Floor 


- 


1A 




1 




Room 


159 


2 


- 


2A 




1 




Room 


164 


2 


- 


4A, 


2S 


6 




Room 


171 


2 


- 


2A 




2 




Room 


176 


2 


- 


2A 




2 




Room 


185 


2 


- 


2A 




2 




Room 


193 


2 


- 


6A 




6 




Room 


198 


2 


. 


1A 




1 




Room 


200 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Room 


203 


2 


. 


3A 




3 




Room 


204 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Room 


211 


2 


- 


5A 




5 




Room 


212 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Room 


216 


2 


. 


1A 




1 




Room 


219 


2 


. 


1A 




1 




Room 


231 


5 


- 


5A, 


2S 


7 




Kiva 


1 


2 


_ 


2A 




2 




Kiva 


3 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Kiva 


5 


2 


. 


2A 




2 




Kiva 


8 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Kiva 


11 


2 


- 


1A 




1 




Stone Circle (?) 


1 


2 


- 


2A 




2 




Circular Structure 


1 


1 


_ 


1A 




1 




Circular Structure 


1 


2 


. 


2A 




2 




Circular Structure 


2 


2 


- 


11A, 


IS 


12 




Plaza 


1 


_ 


_ 


2A 




2 




Plaza 


1 


2 


- 


6A, 


IS 


7 




Plaza 


135 


2 


. 


1A 




1 




Plaza 


201 


5 


- 


1A 




1 



972 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 6. 13. (continued) 



Site Number 


Provenience 


Provenience 

Number 


Level Category 


Level Number 


Morphology* 


Total 
Number 




25 Plaza Feature 
25 Plaza Feature 
25 Plaza Feature 


1 

2 
4 


2 
2 


- 


1A 
1A 
1A 


1 

1 
1 




Other Structure 
Other Structure 
Other Structure 
Other Structure 
Other Structure 
Other Structure 
Other Structure 
Other Structure 


3 
4 
6 
7 
8 
10 
11 
12 


2 
2 

1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 


- 


2A 
53A 
1A 
2A 
2A 
2A 
1A 
7A 


2 
53 

1 
2 
2 
2 
1 
7 




27 
27 
27 


1 

5 

999? 


2 
2 
1 


1 


2A 
1A 
1A 


2 

1 
1 




28 


12 


2 


- 


1A 


1 




72 


3 


2 


- 


3A 


3 




90 


10 


- 


- 


1A 


1 



* Morphology: A = angular; S = spheroid. 



different sites that were excavated by a number of 
archeologists, it is thought that their problems can 
best be served by simply tabulating the provenience 
data (Table 6.13) and allowing the researchers 
involved to use this information at their own discre- 
tion. If their interpretations seem to contribute more 
information to the understanding of hammer-stones, 
then this can be treated at length in future reports. 

Conclusions 



Unfortunately, these criteria have not proven to have 
substantial power in further addressing the very 
problems they have isolated. Consequently, I would 
recommend a refmement of the analysis form which 
could subsequently be applied to a sample of the 
analyzed material. The preliminary analysis has 
determined the problems; further work is needed to 
solve them. 

References 



The results of the analysis of hammerstones 
from Chaco Canyon have shown that contrary to 
wide-spread opinion, these tools are not limited in the 
amount of information which they convey. Indeed, 
it can easily be argued that it is the limitations 
previously imposed by researchers upon their data 
rather than the function of the nature of 
hammerstones that affects the analysis. It has been 
suggested in this report that two basic types of 
hammerstones exist in terms of morphology and that 
these are most likely related to functional differences. 
It has also been suggested that functional differences 
can be related to the type of material from which 
hammerstones were made and that the types, and 
hence functions, change through time. The purpose 
of this report was, in part, to examine the usefulness 
of the criteria selected for analysis. It can be 
concluded that these were indeed successful in 
delineating a number of important problems. 



Binford, L. R. 

1972a Archaeology as Anthropology. In An 
Archaeological Perspective, by L. R. 
Binford, pp. 20-32. Seminar Press, New 
York. 

1972b Archaeological Systematics and the Study 
of Culture Process. In An Archaeological 
Perspective, by L. R. Binford, pp. 195- 
207. Seminar Press, New York. 

Bordaz, J. 

1970 Tools of the Old and New Stone Age . 
Natural History Press, New York. 

Brew, J. O. 

1946 The Archaeology of Alkalai Ridge . Papers 
of the Peabody Museum of American 
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard 
University, Vol. XXI. 



Hammerstones 973 



Chapman, Richard C. 

1977 Analysis of the Lithic Assemblages. In 
Settlement and Subsistence Along the 
Lower Chaco River: The CGP Survey , 
edited by Charles A. Reher, pp. 371-452. 
University of New Mexico Press, 
Albuquerque. 

dishing, F. H. 

1919 The Arrow. Extract in Handbook of 
Aboriginal American Antiquities , by W. H. 
Holmes. Bureau of American Ethnology 
No. 60, Part 1. U.S. Printing Office, 
Washington, D.C. 

Di Peso, C. 

1974 Casas Grandes . No. 9, Vol. 7. Northland 
Press, Flagstaff. 

Dodd, Walter A. 

1979 The Wear and Use of Battered Tools at 
Armijo Rockshelter. In Lithic Use- Wear 
Analysis , edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 231- 
242. Academic Press, New York. 

Ford, J. A. 

1952 Measurements of Some Prehistoric Design 
Developments in the Southeastern United 
States . Anthropological Papers of the 
American Museum of Natural History, 
Vol. 44. New York. 

Frison, G. C. 

1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped 
Stone Tools. American Antiquity . 
33(2): 149-155. 



Haury, E.W. 

1976 The 



Hohokam. Desert Farmers and 



Craftsmen. Excavations at Snaketown, 
1964-1965 . University of Arizona Press, 
Tucson. 

Hayes, A. C, and Lancaster, J. A. 

1975 Badger H ouse Comm unity . U.S. Depart- 
ment of the Interior, National Park Service, 
Washington, D.C. 

Jelinek, A. J. 

1976 Form, Function and Style in Lithic 
Analysis. In Cultural Change and 
Continuity. Essays in Honor of James 



Bennett Griffin , edited by C. E. Cleland, 
pp. 19-33. Academic Press, New York. 

Judd, N. M. 

1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito . 
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections No. 
1, Vol. 124. 

Pueblo del Arroyo . Smithsonian 

Miscellaneous Collections No. 1, Vol. 138. 



1959 



Judge, W. J. 

1973 Chipped Stone Analysis — Terminology. 
Abstract from preliminary draft of Human 
Research Training Bulletin . 



Kidder, A. V. 

1932 The Artifacts of Pecos . 
Press, New Haven. 



Yale University 



Kluckhohn, C. et al. 

1971 Navajo Material Culture . Belknap Press of 
Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 

Knowles, F. H. S. 

1944 The Manufacture of a Flint Arrow-Head by 
Quartzite Hammerstone . Occasional 

Papers on Technology No. 1, Pitt Rivers 
Museum. University of Oxford. 

1953 Stone-Worker's Progress: A Study of 
Stone Implements in the Pitt Rivers 
Museum . Occasional Papers on 

Technology No. 6, Pitt Rivers Museum. 
University of Oxford. 

Longacre, W. A. 

1970 Archaeology as Anthropology . Anthro- 
pological Papers of the University of 
Arizona No. 17. University of Arizona, 
Tucson. 

Malik, S.C. 

1959 Stone Age Industries of the Bombay and 
Satora Districts . Archaeological Series No. 
4. University of Baroda, Poona. 

Martin, P. S., and Plog, F. T. 

1973 The Archaeology of Arizona . Doubleday 
Natural History Press, New York. 

Nie, N. H. et al. 

1975 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 



974 Chaco Artifacts 



Plog, F. T. 

1974 The Study of Prehistoric Change , 
demic Press, New York. 



Aca- 



Spaulding, A. C. 

1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of 
Artifact Types. American Antiquity 
18(3):305-313. 
Review of James A. Ford's Measurements 



1972 



1976 



of Some Prehistoric Design Developments 
in the Southeastern United States . In 
Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M. 
P. Leone, pp. 85-88. Southern Illinois 
University Press, Carbondale. 
Multifactor Analysis of Association: An 
Application to Owasco Ceramics. In 
Cultural Change and Continuity. Essays in 
Honor of James Bennett Griffin , edited by 
G. C. Cleland, pp. 59-68. Academic 
Press, New York. 



Speth, J. D. 

1972 Mechanical Basis of Percussion Flaking. 
American Antiquity 37(l):34-60. 



Thomas, D. H. 

1976 Figuring Anthropology . Holt, Rhinehart 
and Winston, New York. 

Toll, H. W. 

1976 Wear on Quartzite. Unpublished research 
paper, University of Colorado, Boulder. 

Warren, A. H. 

1967 Petrographic Analyses of Pottery and 
Lithics. In An Archaeological Survey of 
the Chuska Valley and the Chaco Plateau, 
New Mexico , by A. H. Harris, J. 
Schoenwetter, and A. H. Warren, pp. 104- 
134. Museum of New Mexico Research 
Records No. 4., Santa Fe. 

Woodbury, R. B. 

1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of North- 
eastern Arizona . Papers of the Peabody 
Museum of American Archaeology and 
Ethnology, Vol. 34. 



Hammerstones 975 



Variable 



Appendix 6A 
Hammerstone Analysis Form 



Category Description 



Columns* 



Column Numbers 



01 
02 
03 



04 



05 



06 



07 



11 



Weight 
Material Type 

Parent State 

1) Cobble 

2) Tabular 

3) Silicified wood 

4) Other 

5) Unknown 



Cortex 

0) Absent 

1) 1-25% 

2) 26-50 

3) 51-75 

4) 76-100 

5) Unknown 



Technology of Manufacture 

1) Shaped by flaking 

2) Shaped by other 

3) Not shaped 



Morphology 

1) Angular 

2) Spheroid 

3) Discoid 

4) Slab 



Wear 

0) Absent 

1) Abrasion 

2) Battering 

3) Step fracture 

4) Abrasion/battering 

5) Abrasion/step fracture 

6) Abrasion/battering/step fracture 

7) Battering/step fracture 



Function (subjective) 

1) Abrader 

2) Hammer 

3) Masonry 

4) Chopper 

5) Manuport 

6) Unknown 

7) Core 



5 
X 

4 
X 



X 

1 



X 

1 



X 

1 



43-47 
48 

49-52 
53 

54 



55 
56 



X 


57 


1 


58 


X 


59 


1 


60 



61 

62 



72 
73 



* X = blank column. 



976 Chaco Artifacts 



Chapter Seven 



An Analysis of Axes and Mauls from Chaco Canyon, 



New Mexico 



Cory Dale Breternitz 



Introduction 

The 25 axes, mauls, and miscellaneous grooved 
sandstone implements analyzed in this chapter come 
from eight sites located within Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park (formerly Chaco Canyon 
National Monument). These sites (29SJ 627, 29SJ 
628, 29SJ 629, 29SJ 1360, 29SJ 721, 29SJ 724, 29SJ 
389 and 29SJ 390) range temporally from late 
Basketmaker III through Pueblo III and include the 
Classic Bonito Phase site of Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389). 
All of the sites were excavated between 1973 and 
1976, with the exception of Pueblo Alto, which was 
excavated in 1976 through 1978, during and after the 
preparation of this report. Reports that were in 
progress or in manuscript form when this paper was 
written are, in some cases, completed (McKenna 
1984; Truell 1975, 1992; Windes 1976a, 1976b, 
1987, 1993). Windes' (1993) report on 29SJ 629 
does update some of the discussion included in this 
chapter. 

This sample consists of 25 artifacts, which 
limits extensive analysis and comparison. To enlarge 
this study, a brief comparison of axes and mauls 
from other sites within Chaco Canyon is included, as 
well as those from sites elsewhere in the Southwest. 

The artifacts in this sample are divided into axes 
and mauls for practical reasons. The literature on 
grooved stone artifacts is full of varying definitions of 
similar artifacts like mauls, hammers, picks, and 
clubs. The definitions used in this paper are taken 



from A. V. Kidder's The Artifacts of Pecos (1932) 
and Richard Woodbury's Prehistoric Stone 
Implements from Northeastern Arizona (1954). An 
axe is defined as any tool that is designed specifically 
for chopping and working wood. It has a sharpened 
bit, is "hafted by means of a wooden handle fitted 
against or into grooves or notches" (Woodbury 
1954:25), and is usually manufactured out of a dense 
igneous or metamorphic rock rather than sandstone. 
Mauls are defined as large, grooved implements 
manufactured out of slightly modified, coarse-grained 
soft sandstone, or a naturally shaped river cobble that 
is basically unmodified except for the groove. Most 
of the sample could be classified in either one or the 
other of these two categories. There were several 
problematical artifacts that were simply termed 
"miscellaneous grooved stone implements," mainly 
because of their extreme size and crudeness of 
manufacture. 

A form for recording the artifacts was designed 
especially for this study. This was done after 
surveying most of the available literature on grooved 
artifacts and compiling a list of attributes and 
measurements that were believed to be important in 
determining the function of the artifact and its method 
of manufacture. Because there is currently no 
consistent method of recording axes and mauls, it is 
hoped that this form will prove useful in further 
studies of this type. A copy of the form is included 
(Figure 7.1), along with a drawing illustrating 
nomenclature used and the location of the 
measurements taken on each artifact (Figure 7.2). 



978 Chaco Artifacts 

AXE & MAUL FORM 

Site # Field Specimen # 

Provenience: (Top part self-explanatory) 



Description: 

1) Type: Type of artifact: axe, maul, hammer, etc. 



2) Condition: Complete or fragment 



3) Material: Helene Warren's material code no. source areas 



4) Weight: Weight of artifact in grams 



5) Dimensions: Length: Bit to poll Poll length: Poll to groove 



Width: Measured on the bit side of Face Length: Bit to groove 

groove on shoulder 

Thickness: Same place as width Bit Width: Width of cutting edge 



6) Nature of Groove: Full groove. 3/4 groove, notched, how manufactured, pecked, ground, etc. 

Groove Width: Measured either at the inner or outer side 

Groove Depth: Same as groove width 

Manufacture: 

1) Parent state: River cobble, tabular sandstone, etc. 



2) Cortex, P/A: Presence or absence of cortex and where on artifact 

3) Shape: Ovid, Ellipsoid, rectangular, etc. 



4) How shaped: Ground, pecked, flaked, abraded 



Function: (wear) Things to look for: 

Abrasion Direction and patterning of striations 

Battering Ground surfaces 

Stepfracturing Regrooving 

Multiple use Reshaped 

Previous use Function: Woodworking 

Polish Light chopping 

Striations Pounding/crushing 



Figure 7. 1 Axe and maul form. 



Axes and Mauls 979 




•A POLL 



GROOVE 
SHOULDER 



OUTER 
SIDE 



BIT 




o 

i 



TOTAL LENGTH 




GROOVE DEPTH 



GROOVE 
WIDTH 



Figure 7.2. A) Axe terminology (after Kidder 1932:45). 
B) Dimensions taken on stone axes. 



980 Chaco Artifacts 



The Sample 

A brief description of the artifacts by site is 
presented below. For a complete list of artifacts, 
their provenience, measurements and weights, see 
Table 7.1. 

29SJ 627 

The most prolific site, as far as grooved stone 
artifacts are concerned, is 29SJ 627, which is repre- 
sented by four axes and nine mauls (Truell 1992). 
Three of the four axes are complete, or complete 
enough to be functional. None of the three have 
sharpened bits and could not be used to cut wood 
efficiently. Instead, their bits show signs of batter- 
ing, flaking, and abrasion; they had been reused as 
hammers when the bits could no longer be reshar- 
pened. Eventually, all stone axes end up as hammers 
or hammerstones because they either become so worn 
down from numerous resharpenings that the edge 
angle forms a bit that is too shallow to cut effec- 
tively, or the bit is broken off so that resharpening is 
impractical. Rather than being discarded, the artifact 
is used as a hafted hammer; this is indicated by 
battering and abrasion on both the bit and poll. Two 
of the three complete axes have full grooves pecked 
around their circumference; the third one is only 3/4 
grooved. This is unusual for both the time period 
and area; 3/4 grooved axes are more common to the 
south and occur later in time. The material of the 
full-grooved axes is Cliff House sandstone (Figures 
7.3 and 7.4), while the 3/4 grooved axe is claystone, 
possibly from the Mancos shale formation (Figure 
7.5). Claystone is slightly harder than sandstone and 
may account for its not being fully grooved. All that 
remains of the fourth specimen is the face, which had 
been fractured along the forward shoulder of the 
groove. It is made from a river cobble of hornblende 
diorite and is slightly battered. 

The nine mauls from this site are made of two 
materials, Cliff House sandstone and hornblende- dio- 
rite river cobbles. Six of the mauls (66 percent) are 
made of Cliff House sandstone. Five of these mauls 
are complete and three of them have full grooves 
(Figures 7.6 and 7.7); the other three are notched, 
usually at the corners of the stone. One of the full- 
grooved sandstone mauls has been split longitudinally 
and then regrooved over the flake scar in the same 
position as the original groove (Figure 7.8). 



The three remaining mauls are all made of 
hornblende-diorite river cobbles (Figures 7.9 and 
7.10). This material was probably desired because of 
its hardness and natural shape, which required little 
modification. All of these artifacts are either notched 
on the edges or only partially grooved where 
absolutely necessary. 

Temporally, 29SJ 627 contains both Pueblo I 
and Pueblo II components (Truell 1992). The 
artifacts occur in all portions of the site, with a 
concentration in Room 8 where there was a cache of 
ground stone. One axe and three mauls (30.7 percent 
of the total sample) from the site come from this 
cache (Figures 7.5, 7.6, and 7.10). None of the axes 
would presently function as woodworking tools. 
When the bits broke off or reached the point where 
they could no longer be resharpened, they were 
retired, probably for use as hammers. The mauls all 
show signs of being used for heavy battering and 
crushing, possibly associated with masonry 
stoneworking or temper crushing for ceramics. 

Of the materials used in the manufacture of 
these artifacts from 29SJ 627, the Cliff House 
sandstone occurs abundantly in the canyon. The 
closest source of the hornblende-diorite river cobbles 
is probably the San Juan River, ca. 75 kilometers to 
the north. The claystone probably originates from 
outcroppings of Mancos shale, located south of Chaco 
Canyon near Crownpoint. The Cliff House sandstone 
accounts for 61.5 percent of the material used, 
hornblende-diorite for 30.7 percent, and the claystone 
for 7.6 percent. 

29SJ 628 

This site yielded three grooved artifacts, two 
axes and one maul. Both axes are modified 
greenstone river cobbles. One of these axes is 
complete, the other is fractured along the forward 
shoulder of its groove so that just the face remains. 

The complete axe (Figure 7.11) can be con- 
sidered a full-grooved axe although the groove does 
not quite meet on one face. This is an irrelevant 
distinction because the stone is slightly concave at 
this point and, therefore, does not require a full 
groove for adequate hafting. This axe is the finest 
and most complete example represented in the 
collection. It is the only example in the collection 



Axes and Mauls 981 



J3 2 
|3| 



Si 



if 
,3 



If 



CO o 



c 
o 
U 






o 





vo 

VO 

I'- 


00 

<s 

vo 


o 


vo 

p- 


vo 

QO 


o 
o 

is 


00 


■* 

00 


oo 
CO 
vo 


CO 

CO 

co 
<s 


<N 

i-« 

co 




, 


ve 


"J 


°i 


00 


o 


, 


■V* 


, 


*r 


■ 


, 


, 




■* 


vd 


vd 


ci 


■* 




■^ 




-H 









> 

2 



vo 



o 
o 



r» 

(N 


© 

ON 


vo 

CO 


00 

o 
r- 


o 
o 


o 
vo 

00 


cs 

co 

CO 

<s 

© 


VO 


O 



VO 


-H 


co 


Ov 


Ov 


^r 


•<r 


-- 


© 


' °) 


t*; 


vd 


00 


© 


r- 


CO 


Ov 


-* 


ci 


r* 


CO 


c> 



Ov 

vd 



Ov 



vd 



<r> 


■* 


pH 


vq 


Ov 


— 


Ov 


cN 


oo 


t-; 


t~ 


CO 


q 


co 


(-; 


q 


CO 


r-; 


•* 


f> 


■* 


vo 


cs 


vd 


"* 


vd 


r-^ 


00 


CO 


t-^ 


Ov 


r^ 


co 


•^ 


vd 


CO 


t^ 


VO 


>o 


VO 


(-; 


<s 


q 


00 


vo 


_ 


CO 


r- 


^ H 


00 


q 


_ 


rt 


^ 


vo 


q 


q 


OO 


VO 


r-^ 


oo 


Ov 


00 


Ov 


00 


© 


<s 


00 


d 


*""! 


00 


Ov 


Ov 


VO 


CO 


vd 


** 


■"* 


°) 


Ov 


°i 


vq 


<n 


q 


Ov 


oo 


(S 


CO 


"5 


<N 


q 


co 


■* 


00 


00 


ri 


•vt 


cN 


r^ 


o! 


cn 




CO 


•* 


Ov 


CO 




<N 


■»r 


co 


VO 


(-^ 


00 


r~ 


r- 

o 


vo 
vo 


VO 

<s 


vo 

Ov 


oo 

CO 


00 

CO 


>o 

VO 


vo 

r-- 


Ov 

CO 


00 
(S 
Ov 


VO 

o 
■<j- 


<s 

VO 


CO 

CO 

vo 


o 
co 


CO 

co 


© 


O 
CO 


Ov 
O 

VO 


r- 
cn 

CO 

co 



E 


E 


o 


o 


a 


o 






ZS> 


cfl 


1) 


u 


* 


J 


€ 


i 


o 


5 


c 


c 



2 - 



g 60 M 

o 2 <<-' 

^ M o CO 



w i5 w U 



5 



o o 
o o 

53 <S 



^J 1 VI 

c a. 
o « 



o 
5 



S 



— ; — . CO 



03 
■vr 

E 

o 
o 



c 



> 


> 


"3 


8 


$ 


,2 


5 


E 


•H 


00 


^ 


o" 


g 

3 

en 


«~* 


VO 


■H 


s 


E 


E 


o 


o 





u 


q 


q 





U. 


04 


0$ 


Pi 



.2 * 



> 



" Q Q U 

;£ o o o 

09 W 09 

9 3 3 

o o o 

g I I 

Ph £ 'Ph 



3 

o 
•5 
S 



3 





vq 



ov q 
ov d 



Ov 


q 


' P 


' °i 


q 


q 


■* 


' °. 


OO 


VO 


r-' 


ri 


CO 


■* 


VO 


d 



6 

On 



fc "7> 



< a 



3 

5 



8 

x 



> 
2 



o 

S 

E 

o 

=2 



voOvo^^^H\o-H^H\ovovr>vovo 
(SOCSTfTf<STrTtCNC-lC-<CS(S 

•^VO-H<SCS-^CSO--^-H-H-H 

r4<scscococscoco<S<sn<scs 



M 



Pi CXt Cu 

SEE 
o o o 

u u u u. 



E 
o 



I 

o 

u 



I 



u 



o 

u 



I 

o 

u 



o 

u 



& 




& 




G. 


D. 


Cu 


E 


6X1 


E 


W) 


E 


E 


E 


o 


s 





S 





o 


o 


U 


£ 


U 


u< 


U 


U 


U 



2 



o 
U 






c c 

O O 



00 

2 
53 

Ov 



Ov 

<s 

VO 

55 
?! 



o 

VO 

co 



vo 00 

vd vd 



Ov 


co 


o 


q 


CO 


<s 


vo 


r~^ 


d 


>o 


*i 


vo 


oo 


q 


r-; 


Ov 


d 


CO 


vd 


vd 


vq 


o 


q 


q 


,H 


Ov 


<s 


CO 


CO 
CO 


ri 




o 


Ov 


co 


cs 



o 




OA 


> 




c 


X 


g 1 


•c 

OS 




■c 


o 


j= 


(S 




o 


_o 


o 


C 






2 
H 


o 




"n 


03 



« ^ -• 



2 « 



s 

o 

5 

CO 



Cu 

E 
o 
U 



o 


<o 


VO 


vo 


VO 


vo 


VO 


o 


_4 


>o 


VO 


VO 


T 


<s 


<S 


(N 


CM 


cN 




(S 


■<r 


ol 


IN 


CN 


o 


VO 




vo 






VO 


o 


CS 






VO 


CO 


■vl- 


CM 


Tt 


«N 


<N 


Tt 


CO 


co 


«N 


«N 


■<t 



o 
U 



%$£££$ 



«-H 


1- 


Ov 


O 


■o 


<s 


<S 


00 


Ov 


g 


r- 


f» 


cN 


CO 


2 


H^ 


>-> 


H-, 


*— , 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


09 

3 


Ov 


Ov 


Ov 


Ov 


<N 


<s 


<N 


(N 


n 



982 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 7. 3. Small axe Cliff House sandstone with a poll groove from 
29SJ 627, FS 2074. (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 
31646). 




Figure 7.4. Rectangular Cliff House sandstone axe with sharp bit, 
shaped by pecking and grinding, from 29SJ 627, FS 
2151. (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 31645). 



Axes and Mauls 983 




Figure 7. 5. Very battered 3/4 grooved clay stone axe, polished and 
with many striations , from 29SJ 627, FS 1676. (NPS 
Chaco Archive Negative No. 31643). 




Figure 7.6. Long pointed maul from the ground stone cache on the 
floor in the northwest corner of Room 8 at 29SJ 627, 
FS 138. (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 31644). 



984 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 7. 7. Battered maul with full medial groove from 29SJ 627, 
FS 1139. (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 31642). 




Figure 7.8. Example of a large grooved Cliff House sandstone 
maul, shaped by pecking and grinding and regrooved 
from 29SJ 627, FS 5133. (NPS Chaco Archive 
Negative No. 31641). 



Axes and Mauls 985 




Figure 7.9. Example of an irregularly shaped maul from 29SJ 627, 
FS 776, manufactured out of a notched hornblende- 
diorite river cobble. (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 
31640). 




Figure 7. 10. Hornblende-diorite maul with sharpened bit and poll 
and medial grooves, from the ground stone cache in 
Room 8, 29SJ 627, FS 138. (NPS Chaco Archive 
Negative No. 31644). 



986 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 7.11 Gabbro-greenstone axe, from 29SJ 628, FS 310. Bit 
shows signs of having been resharpened many times. 
(NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 31649). 




Figure 7. 12. Crudely shaped Cliff House sandstone maul from 29SJ 
628, FS 401. (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 
31647). 



Axes and Mauls 987 




Figure 7. 13. Small grooved hammer of Cliff House sandstone from 
29SJ 629, FS 3327. (NPS Chaco Archive Negative 
No. 31650B). 




Figure 7. 14. Notched axe of hornblende-gneiss from 29SJ 1360, 
FS 381. (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 
19384). 



988 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 7. 15. Very battered, full-grooved greenstone axe from 29SJ 
390, FS 12. (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 31639). 



that retains its sharp cutting edge and shows signs of 
resharpening. The edge angle is no longer 
symmetrical; the angle of the blade along one face to 
the bit is much steeper on one side than the other. 
The inner edge is roughly perpendicular to the haft, 
whereas the outer edge slopes up at a 25-30 degree 
angle due to extensive use. There are some fine 
striations that extend diagonally from the bit towards 
the outer edge and the haft and are probably the 
result of use. Sets of parallel striations extend in all 
directions and overlap, testifying to many 
resharpenings. The poll is formed by the natural 
contour of the stone and exhibits only light battering. 
These wear patterns suggest a single use as a 
woodworking tool. 

The axe fragment has been slightly ground, but 
due to the extreme hardness of the material, this 
grinding did not shape the stone to any extent. The 
microscopic striations present are very irregular, 
possibly indicating the use of an abrader in many 
different directions to sharpen or polish the axe. The 
bit is broken off and bifacially flaked leaving an 
uneven cutting edge, which is slightly abraded and 
step-fractured. 



The one maul from 29SJ 628 is a complete 
specimen made of Cliff House sandstone and exhibits 
a full groove pecked around its circumference (Figure 
7.12). The bit is semirounded and shows signs of 
battering. 

This site consists architecturally of five 
pithouses and a few storage cists dated to late 
Basketmaker III and early Pueblo I periods (Truell 
1975). Both axes come from the floor of the 
antechamber of Pithouse D. It is significant that 
these two specialized artifacts can both be directly 
associated with this structure. The maul is from 
Level 2 in the fill of Pithouse C and cannot be 
positively associated with a specific feature. 

The two greenstone axes are important in that 
there are relatively few axes of this material from 
sites in Chaco Canyon. The closest probable source 
for this material is the Brazos Uplift in north central 
New Mexico, east of the San Juan Drainage. The 
only greenstone axes recovered from sites in Chaco 
Canyon are associated with early sites (except for one 
from 29SJ 390), most of which are late Basketmaker 
III and Pueblo I in age. 



Axes and Mauls 989 



29SJ 629 

The grooved stone artifacts from this site consist 
of one axe, one maul, and an artifact that has been 
called a hammer, for lack of a better term. The axe 
is a fragment and was found on the surface in Room 
9. The hammer was found in the backdirt of fill 
removed from Pithouse 3 by the backhoe. The maul 
is from the upper fill of Pithouse 1 . 

The axe fragment is a portion of the face and is 
made of a greenstone river cobble. One face and 
both sides are highly polished by abrasion; these 
surfaces are covered with numerous irregular 
striations. Several large flakes have been removed 
from one face and the bit is missing. Apparently, the 
axe fractured at the groove at the same time or soon 
after the bit was broken. The edge is not battered or 
abraded and does not appear to have been used as a 
hafted hammer after the bit was removed. Some 
slight abrasion noticeable on the bit indicates that it 
may have been used as a hammerstone before being 
discarded. 

The hammer (Figure 7.13) is made from Cliff 
House sandstone and is ovid in shape and in cross- 
section with a full groove bisecting the artifact almost 
exactly in half. Both ends of the hammer are 
battered. 

The maul from the fill of Pithouse 1 is Cliff 
House sandstone and has a notch pecked into each 
corner of its triangular-shaped body. An abraded 
area on the face appears to be a result of the shaping 
process; however, some of it could be from wear. 

The poor provenience control of these artifacts 
make exact temporal correlations impossible. The 
site appears to have been occupied during late Pueblo 
I and early Pueblo II periods (Windes 1993). The 
presence of a greenstone axe fragment is significant 
and ties in culturally, if not temporally, with the two 
found at 29SJ 628 in the same rincon. 

29SJ 1360 

Site 29SJ 1360 produced two axes, both from 
House II; a complete specimen from Kiva A, Level 
3 and a fragment from the kiva trench overburden. 
The complete artifact (Figure 7.14) is manufactured 
from a hornblende-gneiss river cobble and has two 
opposing notches pecked into its sides for hafting 



purposes. The face is polished and, as a result, 
covered with many irregular striations. There are 
also several striations that can be attributed to use 
wear. Several small flakes have been removed from 
the bit, resulting in a jagged but sharp cutting edge 
which shows little sign of battering or abrading. 

The fragmented specimen also has two opposing 
notches pecked into its sides for hafting. The bit and 
most of the face are missing, leaving the poll and the 
notches. The material is an intermediate igneous 
river cobble probably brought in from the San Juan 
River. The edge of the poll is abraded as though it 
had been used for grooving or engraving. 

It is interesting that both specimens come from 
the same provenience in the site and ultimately from 
the same source area. This site contains both Pueblo 
I and Pueblo II materials (McKenna 1984). 

29SJ 721 

The one specimen from this site is a large maul 
fragment made from a notched horablende-diorite 
river cobble. The artifact retains its natural shape 
except for two opposing notches pecked into the stone 
for hafting purposes. The bit is dulled by battering 
and the poll is broken off at the notches. The artifact 
is from an isolated Pueblo HI kiva, but the main 
portion of the site consists of two Basketmaker III 
pithouses and some cists (Windes 1976a). 

29SJ 724 

The single grooved artifact from this Pueblo I 
site was a crudely shaped, but complete Cliff House 
sandstone maul. It comes from Roomblock 1 where 
a test trench made contact with the wall of Pithouse 
A. Three notches are pecked into the natural corners 
of the unshaped rock; the artifact remains very 
angular and irregular (Windes 1976b). 

29SJ 389 (Pueblo Alto) 

The only grooved stone artifact recovered from 
Pueblo Alto during the first season of excavation was 
a large miscellaneous grooved sandstone implement 
too large to have been a maul. It is made from Cliff 
House sandstone, shaped mainly by flaking and 
pecking, and has two opposing notches pecked into 
the sides. Both ends are battered, although it was 
probably never hafted. It was recovered from this 



990 Chaco Artifacts 



Classic Bonito Phase pueblo while clearing the walls 
of Other Structure 6 (Windes 1987). Windes (1987 
(3):297) indicates there were few hafted tools 
recovered from Pueblo Alto during the entire excava- 
tion period. He described one found in Kiva 15; it 
was made from hornblende-diorite. Forty-nine hafted 
hammers were also found (Windes 1987(3):296) and 
are better classified as hammerstone abraders. 

29SJ 390 (Rabbit Ruin) 

At this site, a full-grooved greenstone axe 
(Figure 7.15) was recovered during wall clearing 
procedures along the east wall of Room 1 1 . The bit 
is broken and several large flakes have been battered 
and abraded. The face is finely polished and covered 
with hundreds of irregular striations, which are a 
product of polishing. There is some yellow hematite 
present in the groove on one face of the axe (Windes 
1987). 

Discussion 

Although this sample is small, it is informative. 
There appears to be a slightly higher percentage of 
mauls represented at most sites. Axes account for 
only ten of the 25 specimens analyzed, or 40 percent 
of the total sample. The mauls account for 52 
percent, and the one hammer and one miscellaneous 
grooved sandstone implement each account for four 
percent of the sample. Temporally, there appears to 
be a higher percentage of axes occurring early; i.e., 
Basketmaker III to Pueblo II periods, with the 
frequency dropping off after Pueblo II times. This 
sample is biased in this respect because most of the 
sites excavated by the Chaco Project in the past three 
years (1973-1976) have been early sites; i.e., 
Basketmaker III, Pueblo I. 

The four greenstone axes account for 40 percent 
of the total axe sample, indicating a definite 
preference for this material. The preference for these 
axes in Basketmaker III and Pueblo I times is 
indicated at both 29SJ 628 and 29SJ 629 where three 
of the four axes were recovered. Forty percent of 
the ten axes are manufactured of greenstone, 20 
percent of Cliff House sandstone, and all other 
materials represent (hornblende-diorite, hornblende- 
gneiss, claystone, intermediate igneous) 10 percent 
each. The mauls are manufactured of two materials, 
66 percent are Cliff House sandstone and the 
remaining 34 percent are hornblende-diorite. 



When axes and mauls are combined, Cliff 
House sandstone occurs most abundantly, accounting 
for 48 percent of the total. The other materials occur 
in the following frequencies: hornblende-diorite — 24 
percent; greenstone — 16 percent; claystone, horn- 
blende gneiss and intermediate igneous — four percent 
each. The Cliff House sandstone occurs abundantly 
in the canyon, making half of the raw materials used 
for the manufacture of grooved artifacts locally 
exploitable by the inhabitants of the canyon. The 
closest source for the rest of the materials, which 
occur primarily as river cobbles, is the San Juan 
River and its associated gravel beds. There is a 
source of greenstone in the Brazos Uplift in north 
central New Mexico, east of the San Juan Drainage. 
The claystone comes from Mancos shale outcrops 
near Crownpoint, south of Chaco Canyon. The San 
Juan River is ca. 75 kilometers to the north. There 
are several prehistoric roads that lead out of Chaco 
Canyon to the San Juan area; however, the earliest 
date for the road system is not known. 

Summary of All Axes and Mauls Reported 
from Chaco Canyon 

A search through the existing literature on 
excavated sites in Chaco Canyon was undertaken to 
obtain information on other grooved stone artifacts. 
The sample of 25 axes and mauls analyzed in the first 
portion of this chapter was combined with those from 
previously excavated sites (Table 7.2). It was hoped 
that by looking at all the sites in Chaco Canyon 
where grooved stone artifacts have been recovered 
that each time period would be equally represented 
and some substantial conclusions could be drawn. 
Only 24 sites, including the eight previously 
mentioned, have records of grooved stone implements 
(Bradley 1971; Brand et al. 1937; Judd 1954, 1959; 
Kluckhohn and Reiter 1939; Pepper 1920; Roberts 
1929, Vivian and Mathews 1965). Many sites, such 
as Chetro Ketl, cannot be included in this study 
because references to grooved stone artifacts could 
not be located, although some were undoubtedly 
recovered. 

When all the sites are examined, the lowest 
frequency of both axes and sites reported occurs 
during Basketmaker III and Pueblo I times. The 
highest frequency occurs during the Pueblo II period 
of the Hosta Butte Phase. The largest number of 
sites investigated also occurs during this period. This 
is due mainly to the excavation of many of the small 



Axes and Mauls 991 



Table 7.2. Sites with grooved stone implements (axes and mauls). 



Basketmaker III 



Pueblo I 



Pueblo 1/ 
Pueblo n 



Pueblo II 



* Sites investigated by the Chaco Center. 



Pueblo III 



Shabik'eshchee 


29SJ 724' 


29SJ 627" 


House Site 


Pueblo del Arroyo 


29SJ 628* 


Be 236 


29SJ 629* 


Wetherill Mesa Site 


Pueblo Bonito 






29SJ 1360* 


Be 50 
Be 51 
Be 53 
Be 59 
Be 362 


Kin Nahasbas 
Pueblo Alto* 
Una Vida 
29SJ 390* 
29SJ 721' 
Kin Kletso 



sites (Be sites) by the University of New Mexico 
Field School in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The 
Classic Bonito Phase greathouses and the smaller 
Pueblo HI sites occur in the next highest frequency as 
do the number of grooved stone artifacts. One axe 
that is included in this count was found on the surface 
of an undisclosed site in Mockingbird Canyon. 

There is a total of 132 grooved stone artifacts 
from 24 sites in the canyon. Eighty stone axes 
represented in the collection account for 60 percent of 
the total. These 80 axes come from 18 sites ranging 
in time from late Basketmaker ED through the Classic 
Bonito Phase greathouses, averaging 4.4 axes per 
site. The actual distribution, however, is not quite 
that even. Only two axes come from Basketmaker III 
and Pueblo I horizons. Both are greenstone and both 
come from 29SJ 628. There are seven mauls from 
four different sites of this period. All but one of 
these mauls is made from Cliff House sandstone. 
The one exception comes from Be 236 and is 
manufactured out of silicified wood (Bradley 1971). 
The sandstone mauls come from Shabik'eshchee 
Village (29SJ 1659, Roberts 1929), which had four; 
29SJ 724 and 29SJ 628 produced one each. It is 
interesting to note that all but the two greenstone axes 
are made of local materials, making the occurrence of 
these two axes even more significant. 

The period from late Pueblo I/early Pueblo II 
through the end of the Hosta Butte Phase is 
represented by 48 axes from 1 1 sites. The materials 
become more diversified during this period, with 
nonlocal materials accounting for a higher 
percentage. Locally obtainable Cuff House sandstone 
accounts for 1 8 percent of the materials used in the 
manufacture of axes. The nonlocal materials (82 
percent) are mostly diorite (21 percent), basalt, 



granite, and serpentine river cobbles and various 
others referred to only as miscellaneous river 
cobbles; 27 percent of the materials are listed as 
unknown. There is a decline in the frequency of 
mauls during this period with 26 represented from 
eight sites. These are mostly made from local 
material with Cliff House sandstone accounting for 
19, or 61 percent of the total. The remaining 39 
percent are made from various diorite and granite 
river cobbles. 

The Classic Bonito Phase greathouses and the 
McElmo Phase sites of Kin Kletso (Vivian and 
Mathews 1965) and 29SJ 390 (Windes 1987) yielded 
a total of 30 axes, the majority of which came from 
Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954) and Pueblo del Arroyo 
(Judd 1959). It is interesting that of these 30 axes, 
none are manufactured out of local materials. All are 
materials that come from the San Juan River Valley 
and the Brazos Uplift to the north, except the 
claystone, which comes from near Crownpoint. All 
of the axes from Pueblo Bonito (15) and Pueblo del 
Arroyo (8) have been called miscellaneous river 
cobbles; these account for 76 percent of the axes 
from this group. The remaining seven axes are 
diorite (3), basalt (2), and greenstone (1), all of 
which probably originated as river cobbles. One axe 
from Kin Nahasbas is of unidentified material (Luhrs 
1935, Mathien and Windes 1988). 

The 18 mauls from this group follow the pattern 
observed for the Hosta Butte Phase sites, with 57 
percent of them manufactured out of Cliff House 
sandstone, 15 percent from river cobbles, and 28 
percent of unidentified materials. Eight of these 
mauls come from Kin Nahasbas (Luhrs 1935; 
Mathien and Windes 1988). The information on 
these artifacts is sketchy at best. Four of the eight 



992 Chaco Artifacts 



can be called miscellaneous grooved implements, the 
largest one weighing almost 6 kg. Six of the eight 
come from Subfloor Pit 2, a large masonry floor 
vault in the great kiva. They were used as wedges 
around a large sandstone disc in the bottom of a 
posthole for one of the main roof supports. 

Discussion 

Several interesting patterns emerge from the 
analyses of the grooved stone implements in this 
collection. There is an increase in the number of 
axes between Basketmaker III and Pueblo I and the 
Hosta Butte Phase of Pueblo II, then the number 
drops off slightly during Pueblo HI. This pattern can 
be explained, in part, by the fact that the number of 
sites investigated also follow this pattern. Four 
Basketmaker II I and Pueblo I sites are included in the 
study, with only 2.5 percent of the axes coming from 
these sites. The Pueblo II period yielded 61 percent 
of the axes studied from 1 1 sites. The later Classic 
Bonito Phase sites of the Pueblo III period produced 
36.5 percent of the total number of axes from only 
eight sites. This last period probably involves a 
higher percentage of axes during the Pueblo II 
period. 

The ratio of axes to mauls also changes through 
time. During the earliest periods, Basketmaker III 
and Pueblo I, the ratio of axes to mauls is 1:3.5. 
During Pueblo II, the axes become more numerous 
than the mauls, with a ratio of 1.9:1, and during the 
last period, Pueblo III, the ratio of axes to mauls 
becomes 1.5:1. 

This pattern, which approximates a normal bell 
curve with its apex occurring during Pueblo II, is 
further supported when the ratio of artifacts to room 
count is examined. During Basketmaker III, the ratio 
of axes to pithouses is 1:11.5 and the ratio of mauls 
to pithouses is 1:4.6. No axes were recovered from 
the two Pueblo I sites investigated, 29SJ 724 and Be 
236. The maul frequency was 1:10 for the rooms 
and 1:1 for the pithouses. In the sites containing 
both Pueblo I and Pueblo II components, the ratio 
becomes much larger, with the ratio of axes to rooms 
becoming 1:4 and the ratio of mauls to rooms, 1:2.7. 
The axe ratio remains at 1:4 for the Pueblo II sites 
and the maul to room ratio becomes lower at 1:20.7. 
For the Pueblo III sites, including the McElmo and 
Classic Bonito Phases, only ground floor rooms are 
included in the room count because total room counts 



have not been estimated for some of the sites. It 
should also be noted that almost 50 percent of these 
ground floor rooms remain unexcavated, which might 
alter any observable patterns. The ratio of axes to 
ground floor rooms is 1:25 and the ratio of mauls to 
ground floor rooms is 1:38. Because the ratio does 
not include total room counts, the ratio of axes and 
mauls to rooms is actually lower than the figures 
indicate. 

It is evident then that there is a definite change 
through time in the frequency and the materials of 
stone axes in Chaco Canyon. In the beginning of the 
Anasazi occupation, local materials were being used 
for the manufacture of most of the grooved stone 
artifacts, except for two highly specialized axes made 
from greenstone. The frequency of axes increases 
during Pueblo II and the materials become more 
diverse, incorporating mostly river cobbles from the 
San Juan River Valley. Then, at the height of the 
Bonito Phase, the frequency of stone axes drops off 
and all the materials used in their manufacture come 
primarily from the San Juan River Valley. 

Several factors can be suggested to explain these 
results. Probably the most important one to consider 
is that the sample is somewhat skewed. It is 
noticeably biased towards the later sites, even though 
much of the pertinent data was unrecorded from early 
excavations at these sites. For example, Chetro Ketl, 
the second largest site in the canyon in terms of size 
and excavation completed, had to be left out of this 
study because of unobtainable data. 

One possible explanation is that as the trade 
networks grew, so did the abundance of exotic items 
such as stone axes. An increase in the population 
would place an increase on the demand for 
specialized and rare tools. During the height of the 
occupation when the road systems were operative, 
treks to the San Juan River and back would be more 
frequent, explaining the fact that all the axes during 
this period were imported. 

Regardless of which theory is used to explain 
the frequency and utilization of these axes, there is a 
noticeable lack of stone axes in Chaco Canyon when 
it is compared to sites elsewhere in the Southwest. 
When sites from other areas in the Southwest are 
examined, the axe frequencies per site become much 
higher (Table 7.3). The materials from these other 
sites, however, are as diversified as those in Chaco 



Axes and Mauls 993 



Canyon and river cobbles remain the preferred 
sources for materials used in the manufacture of stone 



axes. 



Table 7.3. Ratio of axes to total ground 
floor rooms. 



Sites 


Total Axes 


Total Ground 
Floor Rooms 


Ratio 


Chaco Pin* 


29 


734 


1:25 


Mesa Verde b 


126 


124 


1:1.01 


Aztec 8 


100 


225 


1:2.5 


Village of the 
Great Kivas d 


6 


80 


1:13 


Lowry Ruin* 


2 


37 


1:18.5 



* Pueblo Del Arroyo (Judd 1959), Pueblo Bonito (Judd 
1954), Pueblo Alto (Chaco Center Archives), Una Vida 
(Chaco Center Archives), 29SJ 390 (Chaco Center 
Archives), 29SJ 721 (Chaco Center Archives), Kin 
Kletso (Vivian and Mathews 1965). 

b Badger House (Hayes and Lancaster 1975), Big Juniper 

House (Swannack 1969) Mug House (Rohn 1971). 
c Aztec (Morris 1928). 
d Village of the Great Kivas (Roberts 1932). 

* Lowry Ruin (Martin 1936). 

Two reasons come to mind for the high 
frequency of axes occurring in areas such as Mesa 
Verde. First of all, timber resources are much more 
accessible than in Chaco Canyon. Second, the 
Mancos River provides a much closer source of river 
cobbles for the manufacture of axes. This situation 
also exists at the two large outlying Chacoan sites of 
Aztec, where 100 axes were recovered, and the 
Salmon Ruin, which also produced a large number of 
axes. Both sites are located in areas with more 
prolific timber resources than Chaco Canyon and both 
are within one kilometer of an unlimited source of 
river cobbles from the Animas and San Juan Rivers, 
respectively. 

The information about the types (i.e., notched, 
3/4, or full-grooved), frequencies, and material of 
those axes from sites outside Chaco Canyon is just as 
limited as the information within Chaco Canyon. 
Despite the paucity of information, the same general 
patterns, as far as types of axes and the material 
type, emerges. The preference for full-grooved or 
notched axes is indicated and remains constant from 
Basketmaker III through Pueblo III. The preference 
switches over to 3/4 and multiple-grooved axes 
during Pueblo IV, but this has no bearing on the 
Chaco Canyon study. The material types also remain 



constant through time, with igneous and metamorphic 
river cobbles the preferred parent material, mainly 
because of their hardness and shape, which required 
minimal modification. This pattern changes rapidly 
during Pueblo IV, with a strong preference for 
sillimanite axes indicated at Pecos Pueblo (Kidder 
1932) and most of the large Pueblo IV sites along the 
Rio Grande. 

The ratios of axes to mauls is much higher on 
the sites outside of Chaco Canyon. I believe that this 
is due largely to differences in terminology. The 
grooved-stone artifacts from these sites that would 
have been defined as mauls in this chapter are listed 
under such categories as hammers, picks, hoes, 
weights, or clubs. The ratio of axes to rooms 
decreases through time, as it does in Chaco Canyon. 
In some sites, especially on the Mesa Verde, ratios 
reach close to 1:1 (Table 7.3). The decline in the 
frequency, however, does not occur geometrically 
and in many sites the increase in frequency from 
Pueblo II to Pueblo III is hardly noticeable. The 
frequency may even decline slightly; however, it is 
not nearly as sharp a decline as observed in Chaco 
Canyon. 

Undoubtedly, the availability of timber resources 
had some impact on the number of axes utilized in 
Chaco Canyon; however, 52 stone axes were 
recovered from the large Hohokam site of Snaketown 
in south central Arizona (Haury 1976). Snaketown is 
situated in an environment which is equally void of 
abundant timber resources; therefore, it should have 
experienced little need for stone axes. Even more 
interesting is the fact that the timber required for 
construction at Snaketown, which is a large pithouse 
village, is a fraction of that required by most of the 
larger sites in Chaco Canyon. The occurrence of so 
many axes at Snaketown, in contrast to the relative 
lack of these tools in Chaco Canyon, is puzzling. 

One possible explanation for the increase in 
frequency of axes from Basketmaker III through 
Pueblo n, and then the decline during Pueblo III, is 
presented below. 

During the early Anasazi occupation, the canyon 
was lightly populated. The timber resources required 
by this population were minimal due to the small size 
of the group and their style of architecture. The 
house types were pitstructures that required large 
beams only for their main supports. The rest of the 



994 Chaco Artifacts 



roof structure consisted of short beams, branches, 
and brush closing material. These requirements 
could easily be met by the presence of small relic 
stands of Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir, with 
scattered pinon and juniper occurring in the canyon 
or on the mesas such as occur on Chacra Mesa today. 
The occurrence of both Ponderosa pine and Douglas 
fir macrobotanical remains from early sites such as 
29SJ 627 and 29SJ 628 support this theory. These 
two species occurred in higher frequencies than 
would be expected if they had been imported from 
another area. There is evidence that these two 
species were being used as firewood at these sites, 
another argument for their occurring locally. 

As the population increased during Pueblo II, so 
did construction and the need for increased timber 
resources. The technique of cribbing logs to roof 
kivas requires more beams than if they were roofed 
flat. When multiple story dwellings became more 
popular, larger beams were required to roof the 
ground floor rooms in order to support the weight of 
the upper rooms. 



Historic Preservation, National 
Service, Washington, D.C. 



Park 



Brand, Donald IX, Florence M. Hawley, Frank C. 
Hibben; et al. 

1937 Tseh So. a Small House Ruin, Chaco 
Canyon. New Mexico (Prehminary Report) . 
The University of New Mexico Bulletin, 
No. 308, Anthropological Series, Vol. 2, 
No. 2. University of New Mexico Press, 
Albuquerque. 



Haury, Emil W. 

1976 The Hohokam. 



Desert Farmers and 



Craftsmen . The University of Arizona 
Press. Tucson, Arizona. 

Hayes, Alden C, and James A. Lancaster 

1975 Badger House Community, Mesa Verde 
National Park . Archeological Research 
Series No. 7-E, Wetherill Mesa Studies. 
U.S. Department of the Interior, National 
Park Service, Washington, D.C. 



With the timber resources in the canyon limited, 
this resource could conceivably disappear with 
increased population and construction occurring 
during Pueblo II, as indicated by the frequency of 
both sites and axes. Therefore, at the height of the 
Chacoan occupation, an easily accessible timber 
resource would be nonexistent. The Chacoans would 
be required to import most of the beams for the 
construction of the later sites. This behavior could 
be one cause for the establishment of the elaborate 
road system that existed at this time. If indeed many 
of the large beams were brought in from the Chuska, 
Jemez, La Plata, and San Juan mountains, most of 
the labor requiring stone axes would be completed at 
these locations. There is some evidence that many of 
the large beams were cut to predetermined lengths 
(Judd 1964:26-27; Hudson 1972). If this is true, the 
beams could be felled, cut to predetermined lengths, 
debarked, and limb trimmed before transportation to 
Chaco Canyon, thereby eliminating the need for 
many stone axes at sites in the canyon. 

References 

Bradley, Zorro A. 

1971 Site Be 236. Chaco Canyon National 
Monument. New Mexico . Division of 
Archaeology, Office of Archaeological and 



Hudson, Dee T. 

1972 Anasazi Measurement Systems at Chaco 
Canyon, New Mexico. The Kiva 38(1):27- 
42. 

Judd, Neil M. 

1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito . 

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 

124. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

D.C. 
1959 Pueblo Del Arroyo, Chaco Canyon. New 

Mexico . Smithsonian Miscellaneous 

Collections, Vol. 138, No. 1. Washington, 

D.C. 
1964 The Architecture of Pueblo Bonito . 

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection Vol. 

147, No. 1. Washington, D.C. 



Kidder, Alfred Vincent 

1932 The Artifacts of Pecos . 
Press, New Haven. 



Yale University 



Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Paul Reiter (Eds.) 

1939 Preliminary Report on the 1937 Excavations. 

Be 50-51. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . 

The University of New Mexico Bulletin, 

Whole Number 345, Anthropological Series, 

Vol. 3, No. 2. Albuquerque. 



Axes and Mauls 995 



Luhrs, Dorothy L. 

1935 The Excavation of Kin Nahashas, Chaco 
Canyon, New Mexico, Summer Session 
1935. Ms. on file, National Park Service 
Chaco Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

Martin, Paul S. 

1936 Lowrv Ruin in Southwestern Colorado . 
Anthropological Series, Field Museum of 
Natural History, Vol. XXIV, No. 1. 
Chicago. 

Mathien, Frances Joan, and Thomas C. Windes 

1988 Historic Structure Report. Kin Nahasbas 
Ruin. Chaco Culture National Historical 
Park, New Mexico . Branch of Cultural 
Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

McKenna, Peter J. 

1984 Architecture and Material Culture of 29SJ 
1360. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . 
Reports of the Chaco Center No. 7. 
Division of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Albuquerque. 

Morris, Earl H. 

1928 The Aztec Ruin . Anthropological Papers of 
the American Museum of Natural History, 
Vol. XXVI, Part 1. American Museum 
Press, New York. 

Pepper, George H. 

1920 Pueblo Bonito . Anthropological Papers of 
the American Museum of Natural History, 
Volume XXVII. American Museum Press, 
New York. 

Roberts, Frank H. H. 

1929 Shabik'eshchee Village. A Late Basketmaker 
Site in the Chaco Canyon New Mexico . 
Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American 
Ethnology, Bulletin 92. U. S. Government 
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

1932 Village of the Great Kivas on the Zuni 
Reservation. New Mexico . Smithsonian 
Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, 
Bulletin 111. U. S. Government Printing 
Office, Washington, D.C. 

Rohn, Arthur H. 

1971 Mug House. Mesa Verde National Park. 



Colorado . Archeological Research Series 
Number 7-D, Wetherill Mesa Studies. U.S. 
Department of the Interior, National Park 
Service, Washington, D.C. 

Swannack, Jervis D. Jr. 

1969 Big Juniper House. Mesa Verde National 
Park. Colorado . Archeological Research 
Series No. 7-C, Wetherill Mesa Studies. 
U.S. Department of the Interior, National 
Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Truell, Marcia L. 

1975 Summary of the 29SJ 628 Architecture and 
Stratigraphy, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. 
Ms. on file, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

1992 Excavations at 29SJ 627. Chaco Canvon 
New Mexico. Vol. I. The Architecture and 
Stratigraphy . Reports of the Chaco Center 
No. 11. Branch of Cultural Research, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Vivian, Gordon, and Tom W. Mathews 

1965 Kin Kletso. A Pueblo III Community in 
Chaco Canvon. New Mexico . Southwestern 
Monuments Association Technical Series, 
Vol. 6, Parts I and II. 

Windes, Thomas C. 

1976a Excavation at 29SJ 721, an Early Pueblo I 
Site in Chaco Canyon. Preliminary Report 
of the Architecture and Stratigraphy. Ms. 
on file, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

1976b Excavation at 29SJ 724. Preliminary Report 
of the Architecture and Stratigraphy. Ms. 
on file, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

1987 Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex. 
Chaco Canvon. New Mexico. 1975-1979. 
Volume I. Summary of Tests and Excava- 
tions at the Pueblo Alto Community . Publi- 
cations in Archeology 18F, Chaco Canyon 
Studies. National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

1993 The Spadefoot Toad Site. Excavations at 
29SJ 629 in Marcia's Rincon and the Faiada 
Gap Pueblo II Community. Chaco Canvon. 
New Mexico . 2 vols. Reports of the Chaco 



996 Chaco Artifacts 



Center No. 12. Branch of Cultural 
Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe. 



Woodbury, Richard B. 

1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of 



Northeastern Arizona. Reports of the Awatovi 
Expedition, Report Number 6. Papers of the 
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and 
Ethnology . Volume XXXIV. Cambridge. 



Chapter Eight 



An Analysis of Manos from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico 



Catherine M. Cameron 



Introduction 

Manos (n= 1,244) from twelve sites in Chaco 
Canyon were analyzed. The collection included 
samples of manos recovered from two sites and all 
manos recovered from the other sites (see Sample 
below). Analysis examined material, technology of 
manufacture, form and characteristics of use, and 
reuse. Appendix 8A describes the attributes used in 
mano analysis. 

The analysis began in 1975 with a sample of 
100 manos from five sites in Chaco Canyon 
(Cameron 1976). Analytic attributes were selected 
based on a literature search and an examination of the 
mano sample. Analysis of this sample was used to 
refine the attributes selected and to eliminate 
attributes that were not useful. The revised analytic 
form (Appendix 8A) was applied to a much larger 
sample of manos (n=911) between 1975 and 1977 
and variability in attributes was examined (Cameron 
1977). Manos excavated from sites in Chaco Canyon 
after 1977 were analyzed using the revised form. 

In 1978, a group of unprovenienced manos from 
Site 29SJ 627 (see Sample below) was briefly 
examined and only those attributes considered most 
useful in assessing mano variability were recorded. 
These data were not included in the computerized 
mano database and are not used in this analysis. 

Due to a great delay in the publication schedule 
for Chaco manuscripts, neither of the previous 
reports on manos (Cameron 1976, 1977) were ever 
published. The present report was written in 1985. 
It includes data used in both of the previous reports, 
as well as data collected on manos between 1977 and 
1979. 



The Sample 

Selection of Manos for Analysis 

Excavations in Chaco Canyon spanned the 
period from 1973 to 1979. Prior to 1975, manos and 
other ground stone were not routinely returned to the 
laboratory for analysis. They were described briefly 
(length, width, thickness, type) and then discarded. 
Unfortunately, most of these descriptions have since 
been lost. Some ground stone was retained; 
however, there were no consistent criteria for 
selection (Peter McKenna, personal communication; 
Thomas C. Windes, personal co mmuni cation). Sites 
excavated prior to 1975, from which some manos 
were discarded, are: 

29SJ 299 

29SJ 423 

29SJ 627 (first year of excavation) 

29SJ 628 

29SJ 721 

29SJ 724 

29SJ 1360 

29SJ 1659 

All manos that were retained were analyzed 
except for those from sites 29SJ 627 and 29SJ 1360. 
Manos from these two sites were sampled because of 
time limitations. Almost 60 percent of the manos 
from 29SJ 627 were analyzed (354 of 597). Those 
selected for analysis included all manos from floor 
contact, floor fill, and wall-fall contexts; 50 percent 
of manos from trash contexts; and 10 percent of 
manos from alluvial fill contexts. Over 70 percent of 
the manos from 29SJ 1360 were analyzed (107 of 
145). Manos at this site were selected by major 
provenience unit: all manos from rooms and kivas; 



998 Chaco Artifacts 



66 percent of the manos from the plaza; and 10 
percent of the manos from the surface and from a 
trash area which may not have been associated with 
the rest of the site. 

Association of Manos with Other Ground 
Stone Types 

Mano analysis was part of a larger program of 
ground stone analysis. Field identifications were 
used to sort ground stone into four categories (manos, 
metates, abraders, and other ground stone). When an 
artifact showed evidence of multiple use, it was 
included in more than one analysis (i.e., manos 
reused as abraders, metate fragments reused as 
manos, etc). Less than one-fifth of the manos 
showed evidence of secondary use which could be 
associated with another artifact type (see Reuse 
below). 

The Analysis 

Mano Types 

Two mano types are typically identified in the 
Southwest: one-hand manos and two-hand manos 
(Bartlett 1933, Chapman 1983, Lancaster 1983, 
Woodbury 1954). One-hand manos are oval in plan 
and shorter in length than two-hand manos, which are 
generally rectangular in plan. One-hand manos have 
a width/length ratio greater than 0.75, while two- 
hand manos have a ratio of less than 0.75 (Chapman 
1983:522). 

One-hand manos have been associated with 
basin metates and the grinding of wild plants during 
Archaic and Basketmaker time periods (Bartlett 
1933:20-21), while two-hand manos were used on 
trough or slab metates primarily for grinding corn 
during Pueblo periods (Lancaster 1983:17). There is 
evidence, however, that one-hand manos continued to 
be used occasionally throughout the Pueblo period 
(Chapman 1983) and may have been used for a 
variety of purposes (Lancaster 1983:34, Woodbury 
1954:78-79). 

For this analysis, one- and two-hand manos are 
subdivided by differences in cross-section. 
Differences in cross-section are usually explained as 
being the result of degree of use and/or variation in 
type of stroke used with the mano (Bartlett 1933; 
Chapman 1983; Lancaster 1983). Manos from Chaco 




One-hand Manos 
Ovoid 

Two-hand Manos 
Rectangular 

Beveled 

Wedge 

Triangular 

Bi-tri angular 

Discoidal 



Figure 8.1. Manos cross-section types. 

Canyon showed seven cross-section types: 
rectangular, beveled, wedge, triangular, ovoid, bi- 
triangular, and discoidal (Figure 8.1, Table 8.1). 

All one-hand manos from Chaco had ovoid 
cross-sections (see Material Types below). Two-hand 
manos never had ovid cross-sections; all other cross- 
section types were present in two-hand manos. 
Therefore, while the terms one- and two-hand manos 
will be used in this discussion for the remainder of 
this report, mano type will refer only to the seven 
cross-section types; ovoid cross-section equals one- 
hand manos while the other six cross-section types 
(rectangular, beveled, wedge, triangular, bi- 
triangular, and discoidal) will identify subdivisions of 
two-hand manos. 



Table 8. 1 . Frequency of mano cross-section 
types. 



Cross-section Type 



Number 



Percent 



One-hand Manos 






Ovoid 


26 


2.09 


Two-hand Manos 






Rectangular 
Beveled 


202 
125 


16.24 
10.05 


Wedge 
Triangular 
Bi-trianguiar 
Discoidal 


456 

74 

2 

256 


36.66 
5.95 
0.16 

20.58 


Cross-section unknown 


103 


8.28 


Total 


1,244 


100.00 



Manos 999 



Material Type 

Almost all manos were made of sandstone. 
Only five were another material, all quart zite. The 
sandstone presumably came from the local Cliff 
House sandstone formation, which forms the walls of 
Chaco Canyon. The initial analysis of a sample of 
100 manos recorded several characteristics of the 
sandstone (including hardness, color, grain size, grain 
shape, and grain sorting). Little variability was 
found among these attributes (Cameron 1976), and 
only the first three were retained during the analysis 
of the remainder of the manos (Appendix 8 A). 

Sandstone from which manos were made was 
hard (84 percent) and fine-grained or very fine- 
grained (92 percent). A chi -square test of hardness 
and grain size, contrasting hard and soft materials 
with very fine-grained material and all other grain 
sizes was not significant (x 2 =0.056, df=l, 0.90 
<p<0.95). 

Almost half of the manos were gray, one-fifth 
were tan, and one-fourth were mixed tan/gray. Two 
varieties of the Cliff House sandstone have been 
described in Chaco Canyon: a softer buff-colored 
sandstone and a light brown, harder sandstone 
(Vivian and Mathews 1965:34). Differential use of 
these two materials in wall construction has been 
noted (Lekson 1984:10). In another study, Garrett 
(1988) has differentiated between a well-cemented, 
very fine-grained, gray sandstone used as building 
material at a site in Chaco Canyon and less well- 
cemented, medium-grained, light brown sandstone 
found in outcrops near the site. In spite of the 
differences in color found in Chaco manos, the 
uniformity in hardness and grain size suggests 
selection for specific varieties of the local sandstone. 

Four of the five quartzite manos are one-hand 
(ovoid cross-section) manos indicating selection of 
quartzite for this artifact type. A chi-square test of 
one-hand and two-hand manos by material type 
(sandstone versus quartzite) was significant at the 
.001 level (x 2 = 155.8, df=l). 

Technology of Manufacture 

Most manos were made by shaping a block of 
sandstone. Less than 6 percent could be identified as 
having been made from cobbles, concretions, or 
reused manos or metates. Easily available local 



material probably reduced the need to recycle other 
artifacts. Shaping was achieved through chipping and 
pecking, which was often visible on edges and ends 
of manos. Initial forms were generally rectangular 
and as described below (see Form below), some 
"new" manos may have been relatively thin, perhaps 
manufactured of tabular sandstone. 



Form 



Dimensions 



Manos with an ovoid cross-section are smallest 
in average weight, length, width, and grinding area 
(Table 8.2). They were the only cross-sectional type 
for which a width/length ratio was greater than 0.75. 
As noted above, manos with an ovoid cross-section 
can be identified as one-hand manos. 

Length and width for other cross-section types 
(two-hand manos) were very similar, averaging 18.7 
cm in length and 11.0 cm in width. These 
dimensions are similar to those for manos used on 
trough metates from other areas of the Southwest 
(Bartlett 1933:13; Morris 1939:133; Woodbury 
1954). Low variation in length and width of manos 
correlates with a similar lack of variation in the width 
of metate troughs and to the average grip size of 
grinders (Lancaster 1983:84). Trough widths for 
Chaco metates average about 19.7 cm (John 
Schelberg, personal communication, 1985). 

Weight. Thickness and Grinding Surface Area 

Weight, thickness, and grinding surface area 
vary among cross-sectional types and indicate that for 
two-hand manos, cross-section type reflects stages in 
the use-life of a mano. Weight is greatest for 
rectangular manos (Table 8.2); discoidal manos form 
an intermediate weight group; beveled, wedge and 
triangular manos weigh the least. (As noted above, 
one-hand manos weigh less than any of the two-hand 
mano types.) Maximum and minimum thickness 
were also greatest for rectangular manos; however, 
maximum and minimum thickness varied for other 
two-hand mano types. Discoidal manos have a 
higher minimum thickness than other types, but a 
lower maximum thickness than do wedge-shaped and 
beveled manos. 

The association of thickness and weight with 
cross-section supports the suggestion that cross- 



1000 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 8.2. Size ofmanos by cross-section. 











Two-hand Manos 






One-hand 
















Manos 


Measurements 


Rectan- 
gular 


Beveled 


Wedge 


Tri- 
angular 


Bi-tri- 
angular 


Discoidal 


Ovoid 


Weight 
s.d. 


1819.8 
546.2 


868.3 
267.8 


942.2 
331.0 


890.5 
278.4 


1114.3 
545.7 


1129.5 
343.8 


572.8 
161.7 


Length 
s.d. 


19.4 
2.0 


18.6 
2.1 


18.2 
2.5 


19.0 
2.1 


19.3 
1.2 


18.7 
2.5 


10.6 
1.5 


Width 
s.d. 


11.6 
1.3 


10.3 
1.2 


10.5 
1.2 


11.2 
1.1 


12.2 
0.1 


11.6 
0.9 


8.3 

1.0 


Maximum thick, 
s.d. 


4.1 
0.9 


2.7 
0.6 


3.0 
1.0 


2.0 
0.7 


1.8 
1.1 


2.5 
0.6 


3.4 
0.9 


Minimum thick, 
s.d. 


3.3 
1.0 


0.9 
0.7 


1.2 
0.7 


1.1 

0.7 


1.3 
1.1 


2.0 
0.6 


2.6 
0.6 


Area grinding 
Surface A 


180.0 
39.3 


165.0 
30.2 


162.8 
32.9 


178.6 
43.2 


202.0 
15.6 


180.0 
38.5 


57.2 
21.5 


Area grinding 
Surface B 


167.9 
37.9 


141.8 
49.4 


127.5 

50.2 


147.3 

43.2 


185.5 
16.3 


169.5 
35.6 


44.6 
12.4 



section types relate to progressive stages in the use- 
life of manos (see Mano Use-life below). 
Rectangular manos, often considered an early use 
stage, would have lost the least material and thus be 
heaviest and thickest. Beveled, wedge, and triangular 
manos presumably represent well-used stages; they 
should be thinnest and weigh the least. Discoidal 
manos may also represent early stages in mano use, 
but may have been made of a tabular sandstone which 
was initially thinner than the sandstone from which 
rectangular manos were made (Chapman 1983). This 
would account for their intermediate weight and 
thickness. 

Grinding surface area was greatest for 
rectangular manos, discoidal manos, bi-triangular, 
and triangular manos (Table 8.2). Smaller grinding 
areas on wedge and beveled types suggest that 
grinding surface area decreases with use, but that the 
grinding stroke described by Bartlett (1933:15-16) for 
modem Hopi grinders, which resulted in a triangular 
cross-section, may have been developed to increase 
grinding surface area. 

Shape 

Plan view was rectangular for more than 85 
percent of the manos for which this variable could be 
recorded. Other shapes were primarily oval (10 



percent) or irregular (3 percent). Longitudinal cross- 
section was either square or convex for more than 95 
percent of the manos for which this variable could be 
recorded. Rectangular and discoidal mano types had 
a higher relative frequency of square longitudinal 
sections, while beveled, wedge, and triangular manos 
had a higher relative frequency of convex longitudinal 
sections. This suggests that a convex longitudinal 
section may be related to later stages in mano use- 
life. A chi-square test of "new" manos (rectangular, 
discoidal) and "used" manos (beveled, wedge, 
triangular) by longitudinal section (using only square 
and convex longitudinal sections) was significant at 
the .001 level ( x 2 = 30.8, df=l). 

Finger Grooves 

Only 10 percent of the manos showed evidence 
of prepared finger grooves (Table 8.3). These were 
shallow, circular holes pecked into the edge of the 
mano to provide a better grip. They occurred on 
one-hand and two-hand manos of all cross-section 
types except bi-triangular. Many rectangular and 
discoidal manos ("new" mano types) had two finger 
grooves. Other mano types had only one groove, 
indicating that a second groove may have been worn 
away and was no longer visible. Two manos (both 
wedge cross-section) had a long groove for multiple 
digits. 



Manos 1001 



Table 8.3. Number of finger grooves by mano type. 



Type 



One-hand manos 
Ovoid 

Two-hand manos 



Total 



Groove for 
One Groove Two Grooves Multiple Digits Total 



Rectangular 


25 


19 


Beveled 


3 


- 


Wedge 


52 


3 


Triangular 


5 


- 


Bi-triangular 


- 


- 


Discoidal 


14 


8 


Unknown 


4 


- 



105 



31 



44 
3 

57 
5 

22 
4 

138 



Mano Use 

Evidence for Use on Trough Metates 

Virtually all metates from sites excavated by the 
Chaco Project were the trough variety (John 
Schelberg, personal communication 1985). 
Corresponding evidence that manos recovered from 
these sites were used on trough metates is indicated 
by size and shape of two-hand manos. Almost 70 
percent of the manos had canted ends, indicating 
contact with the walls of a trough metate (Figure 
8.2). Of the 24 percent of manos with straight 
edges, most were found on manos with rectangular 
and discoidal cross-sections (Table 8.4), suggesting 
again that these are "new" manos with little 
distinctive wear on their ends. Manos with curved 
ends (Table 8.4) were primarily one-hand manos 
(ovoid cross-section). As these manos are small, 
their use on a trough metate might not be apparent 
from an examination of mano ends. 

Average length of Chaco manos (18.7 cm, see 
Form above, Table 8.2) is similar to the length of 
manos used on trough metates from other areas. 
Manos used on trough metates in northern Arizona 
average 18.0 cm in length, while manos used on slab 
metates from that area average 25 cm in length 
(Woodbury 1954). In southwestern Colorado and 
northwestern New Mexico, manos used on trough 



metates average 17.4 cm in length, while manos used 
on slab metates average 22.5 to 33.0 cm in length 
(Morris 1939:133). These comparisons provide 
further evidence that Chaco manos were used on 
trough metates. 

Characteristics of Grinding Surface 

Almost 90 percent of the manos showed 
evidence of grinding use on only one surface. As 
with metate surfaces, manos were frequently pecked 



Canted 



Straight 



Pointed 

(canted on both sides) 



Curved 



Figure 8.2. Configuration of ends. 



1002 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 8.4. Shape ofmano ends by cross-section. 



Tvpe 



Canted 



No. 



JL 



Square 



No. 



Pointed 



No. 



Curved 



No. 



Other 



No. 



Total 
No. 



% of 
Total 



One-hand 
Ovoid 



11.54 



15.38 



7.69 17 



65.38 



26 



2.09 



Two-hand 
Rectangular 


99 


49.01 


82 


40.59 


5 


2.48 


4 


1.98 


12 


5.94 


202 


16.24 


Beveled 


89 


71.20 


22 


17.60 


5 


4.00 


1 


0.80 


8 


0.06 


125 


10.05 


Wedge 


345 


75.66 


69 


15.13 


13 


2.85 


4 


0.88 


25 


5.5 


456 


36.66 


Triangular 


59 


79.73 


9 


12.16 


2 


2.70 


- 


- 


4 


5.40 


74 


5.95 


Bi- 

triangular 


- 


- 


- 


- 


2 


100.00 


- 


- 


- 


- 


2 


0.16 


Discoidal 


145 


56.64 


90 


35.16 


9 


3.52 


- 


- 


12 


4.68 


256 


20.58 


Unknown 


56 


54.37 


J2 


11.65 


2 


2.91 


— 


- 


J2 


31.07 


103 


8.28 


Total 

% of Total 


796 


63.99 


288 


23.15 


41 


3.30 


26 


2.09 


93 


7.48 


1,244 


100.00 



Table 8.5. Cross-section by grinding surface preparation. 









Pecked/ 










Little 












Very 
No. 


Pecked 

% 


Moderate 
Pecking 

No. % 


Heavv Abrasion 
No. % 


No Pecking 

No. % 


Pecking/Little 
Abrasion 

No. % 


Other 


Total 
No. 


% of 


Tvoe 


No. % 


Total 


One-hand 




























Ovoid 


- 


- 


8 


30.8 


5 


19.2 


12 


46.2 


1 


3.9 


- 


26 


2.1 


Two-hand 




























Rectangular 


28 


13.9 


95 


47.0 


65 


32.2 


10 


5.0 


4 


2.0 


- 


202 


16.25 


Beveled 


1 


0.8 


20 


16.0 


57 


45.6 


47 


37.6 


- 


- 


- 


125 


10.1 


Wedge 


12 


2.63 


119 


26.1 


213 


46.7 


110 


24.1 


- 


- 


2 0.4 


456 


36.69 


Triangular 


- 


- 


14 


18.9 


38 


51.4 


22 


29.7 


- 


- 


- 


74 


6.0 


triangular 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


50.0 


1 


50.0 


- 


- 


- 


2 


0.2 


Discoidal 


15 


5.88 


96 


37.65 


118 


46.27 


25 


9.8 


1 


0.4 


1 0.4 


256 


20.6 


Unknown 


_5 


4.9 


45 


43.7 


41 


39.9 


11 


10.7 


J, 


1.0 


— 


103 


8.3 


Total 


61 




397 




538 




238 




7 




3 


1,244 




% of Total 




5.0 




31.9 




43.3 




19.2 




0.6 


0.2 




100.0 



Manos 1003 



to provide a coarser and more effective grinding 
surface. Mano surfaces varied from pecked to 
completely abraded and smooth; however, rectangular 
and discoidal types ("new" manos) were more likely 
to be very pecked. Beveled, wedge-shaped, 
triangular, and bi-triangular types ("well-used") were 
more likely to be heavily abraded (Table 8.5). A 
chi-square test of "new" manos (rectangular, 
discoidal) and "used" manos (beveled, wedge, 
triangular, bi-triangular) by grinding surface 
preparation (very pecked and moderate abrasion 
versus heavy abrasion and no pecking evident) was 
significant at the .001 level (x 2 = 139.0, df=l). 
Ovoid (one-hand) manos showed less pecking than 
other types (Table 8.5). 

Striations were visible on most (93 percent) of 
the manos and were almost all oriented 
perpendicularly to the long axis of the artifact (89 
percent of those visible). This indicates that manos 
were held perpendicularly to the metate and moved 
with a reciprocal motion. Ten percent of the manos 
had striae both perpendicular and parallel to the long 
axis of the artifact (cross-hatched), possibly as a 
result of secondary use. Only one mano showed 
rotary striae (with a wedge-shaped cross-section). 

Handedness in the Mano User 

Most manos (78 percent) had edges that were 
parallel to each other, probably indicating equal 
pressure on the trailing edge of the mano by the 
mano user. Of the manos for which edges were not 
parallel (n=96), a slightly greater frequency 
expanded left (59 percent), indicating greater pressure 
on the right side of the trailing edge of the mano. 
This might suggest a slightly greater number of right- 
handed mano users in Chaco Canyon. 

Reuse 

Almost 75 percent of manos showed use-wear 
not associated with the grinding process, but more 
than half of this secondary use consisted of slight 
grinding and polishing or striation/grinding (Table 
8.6) and could not be identified with a particular 
artifact type. As almost all of this type of use-wear 
occurred on the surface of the mano which had not 
been used for grinding, slight grinding, or polishing 
may not, in fact, indicate reuse, but may be the result 
of continued contact with the hand of the grinder. 



Of the manos for which reuse could be 
identified (n=220, 18 percent of the total), more than 
one-third were reused as abraders, another one-fourth 
were reused as anvils, while the remainder were 
hammerstones, palettes, choppers, and polishers. 
Some manos were reused more than once as different 
artifact types. 

Temporal Variability in Cross-section Types 

Table 8.7 shows mano cross-sections through 
time. (Only those manos which could be confidently 
assigned to 100-year periods are included.) One-hand 
(ovoid cross-section) manos appear in all time periods 
with highest relative frequency of this type during the 
period from A.D. 500 to 600. This may indicate 
one-hand mano use during this period, or it may be 
the result of small sample size. Rectangular, 
discoidal, and wedge-shaped manos generally form a 
relatively high percentage of all manos in all time 
periods. Beveled manos occur primarily after A.D. 
920 and triangular and bi-triangular manos occur 
exclusively after A.D. 920. 

Table 8.8 shows mano types for the pre-A.D. 
920 and post-A.D. 920 periods. It is clear that 
typical patterns of mano use in Chaco Canyon 
generally produced wedge-shaped manos, but that 
after A.D. 920, a new grinding stroke was developed 
that resulted in beveled and/or triangular manos. 
Bartlett (1933:18-19) suggests that the grinding stroke 
which produced triangular manos was developed 
between A.D. 1100 and 1300. The transition from 
trough to slab metates has been dated to the late 
Pueblo II to the early Pueblo III period (Woodbury 
1954). This suggests that the development of the 
stroke that produced triangular manos may have been 
associated with the development of slab metates. 

The vast majority of the beveled and triangular 
manos from Chaco Canyon, however, have canted 
ends, indicative of use with a trough metate (Table 
8.4). They are also the same average length as those 
used with trough metates (see Form above, Table 
8.2). An intermediate stage in the progression from 
trough to slab metates involved enclosing trough 
metates in bins (which are a usual component of the 
use of slab metates). The use of the metate bin in 
Chaco Canyon began in late A.D. 900s along with 
the first evidence of communal grinding areas (Truell 
1983). These changes in grinding patterns may be 



1004 Chaco Artifacts 



1 
i 

no 

3 



8 

so 

C*J 



CO 
00 

■32 






VO 


S 


© 




00 


"5 


q 


— 


>H 


en 


vd 


vi 


•H 


Ov 



— t -H -< P< 



-H t<1 tS 



$ 



r- 



0) 

a 
a 

6 



— «-,— ' 



-h| <J\v© 

-H «^ 






« c 



•S 

















o 
















o 
















-s 
















3 
















•o 


9 

'•3 

c 

•c 
o 




•c 

8 




1 

■■3 
c 
■a 
o 
"a 


1 

Ph 


"a 
o 

E 

I 


8 

if 

18 


1 


1 


I 1 


^ 


f 


f 


■c SP 

60S 
















12 


S. 


o. 


e 
s 




T3 


"2 


Am 

a o 

CO o. 


CA 

1 


a, 
V 


Cl. 


CO 


■s 

o 


1 



u •— 



3 o 

[2^ 



Table 8. 7. Distribution ofmano cross-section types by time. 



Manos 1005 



Jm. 



Time Period (A.D.) 



500-600 



600-700 



700-820 



820-920 



920-1020 



1020-1120 



No. 



No. 



No. 



No. 



No. 



No. 



% 



1120-1220 



No. 



One-hand 
Ovoid 


2 


40.0 


3 


9.1 


2 


5.7 


_ 


_ 


5 


1.4 


3 


0.9 


1 


3.3 


Two-hand 
Rectangular 


1 


20.0 


8 


24.2 


5 


14.3 


6 


22.2 


67 


19.0 


46 


15.0 


3 


10.0 


Beveled 


- 


- 


1 


3.0 


1 


2.9 


- 


- 


27 


7.6 


45 


14.7 


7 


23.3 


Wedge 


- 


- 


11 


33.3 


17 


48.6 


11 


40.7 


130 


36.9 


104 


33.9 


9 


30.0 


Triangular 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


20 


5.7 


22 


7.1 


4 


13.3 


Bi- 

triangular 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


2 


0.6 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Discoidal 


_2 


40.0 


_9 


27.3 


_6 


17.1 


_8 


29.6 


_71 


20.2 


j63 


20.5 


_2 


6.7 


Total 


5 




33 




31 




25 




322 




283 




26 





Table 8.8. Mono cross-section types by time. 





Pre A.D. 


920 


Post A.D. 


920 


Type 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


One-hand 
Ovoid 


11 


8.8 


11 


1.2 


Two-hand 
New mano types 
(Rectangular, 
Discoidal) 


58 


46.4 


367 


39.1 


Beveled 


3 


2.4 


120 


12.8 


Wedge 


53 


42.4 


366 


39.0 


Triangular and 
Bi-triangular 


z 


- 


74 


7.8 


Total 


125 




938 





1006 Chaco Artifacts 



associated with the development of the grinding 
stroke that produced triangular manos. 

Mano Use-life 

As noted above, differences in cross-section for 
two-hand manos are generally explained as the result 
of degree of use and/or variation in type of stroke 
used with the mano. As indicated by this study and 
as noted by others (Bartlett 1933; Chapman 1983), 
manos with a rectangular or discoidal cross-section 
are "new" mano types, while other cross-sections are 
the result of varying degrees of use. There are, 
however, different ideas on the processes which 
produce "used" mano cross-sections, especially for 
beveled and triangular manos. Bartlett (1933:15-16) 
suggests that triangular manos are the result of a new 
grinding technique, but does not mention beveled 
manos. Eidenbach (1980:37) placed beveled manos 
as an intermediate stage in a use-life that results in 
triangular manos. Chapman (1983:531-532), 
however, suggests that beveled manos are the end 
result of continued use, with wedge-shaped manos as 
an intermediate stage. 

The occurrence of beveled manos at sites in 
Chaco Canyon during the same periods when 
triangular manos begin to occur (A.D. 920 to 1020) 
suggests association between these two types; beveled 
manos might be less worn than triangular manos. 
This process is described by Bartlett as follows: 

As a woman grinds she exerts the most 
pressure with the palm of her hand on the 
back of the mano and on the down stroke 
of the mano she pulls up on the front of 
it, so that only a small part of it touches 
the metate. On the up stroke she holds 
the mano flat on the metate. Because the 
back part of the mano receives the most 
pressure and gets the most wear, it 
becomes worn down more rapidly than the 
front portion. Very gradually the mano 
takes on a slightly triangular form, being 
flat on top with one long side resting on 
the metate and one short side. Then the 
mano is turned around and the short side 
is used for grinding until it in turn 
becomes long, when the process is 
repeated (Bartlett 1933:15-16). 

It might follow that beveled manos may have 



been used in the manner described above, but not 
turned around. This does not, however, seem to be 
supported by manos from sites in Chaco Canyon. If 
beveled manos are an intermediate stage between new 
manos and triangular manos, they should be thicker 
and weigh more than triangular manos. As Table 8.3 
shows, average weight for beveled manos is less than 
triangular manos; average minimum thickness is also 
less. Apparently, attributes of beveled and triangular 
manos at Chaco Canyon cannot be used to confirm 
the place in a use-life of these types. 

Greathouse and Small-house Sites: 
Consumption and Distribution of Manos 

Ceramics and chipped stone have been used to 
examine average artifact consumption rates for large 
and small sites in Chaco Canyon (Cameron 1984; 
Toll 1984). This is more difficult with manos 
because of the large number which were discarded or 
not analyzed. Comparisons can be made, however, 
between the Gallup phase at Pueblo Alto and 29SJ 
629, a village site where no manos were discarded in 
the field. 

Table 8.9 shows the number of households 
(defined architecturally), the duration of occupation, 
the percent of the site excavated (Toll 1984) and the 
projected total number of manos from the site. Mano 
use rates (per household per year) at Pueblo Alto 
during the Gallup Phase are more than three times as 
great as those at 29SJ 629. Ceramic and chipped 
stone use rates showed similar high frequencies at 
Pueblo Alto (Cameron 1984, Toll 1984). Because 
manos are a domestic artifact, the differences in use 
rate at Pueblo Alto and 29SJ 629 suggest that 
population at Pueblo Alto is larger than would be 
indicated by architectural households alone. 

The new grinding technique proposed for the 
post-A.D. 920 period (see Mano Use-life above) may 
be examined at greathouse and small-house sites. 
While it would be most instructive to examine manos 
only from the period from A.D. 920 to 1020, the 
sample of manos from greathouses during this period 
is very small (n = 8). 

Comparing manos from greathouse (Pueblo Alto 
and Una Vida) and small-house sites (29SJ 627 and 
29SJ 629), including all periods after A.D. 920 
(Table 8.10), shows that while the frequency of 
beveled manos is lower at small-house sites than at 



Manos 1007 



Table 8.9 Projected use-rate of manos at greathouse 
and small-house sites. 



Pueblo Alto 29SJ 629 



% of site excavated: 
Rooms, etc. 
Midden 


10.0 
2.2 


100.0 
70.0 


Number of manos: 
Rooms, etc. 
Midden 


114 

26 


170 

7 


Projected total number 
of manos 


2,322 


180 


Years of use 


50 


130* 


Number of households 


20 


2 


Manos per household per year 


2.3 


0.69 



* This figure represents the span during which the site was 
occupied and may include one or more gaps in site occu- 
pation (Windes 1993). 



Table 8. 10. Frequency of beveled and triangular 
manos at greathouse and small-house 
sites. 





Greathouses 
(Pueblo Alto 
Una Vida) 


Small-house 

Sites (29SJ 627 

29SJ 629) 


Type 


No. 


% 


No. % 


Beveled 


75 


17.3 


39 7.3 


Triangular 


40 


9.2 


32 6.0 


Other 


318 


73.4 


460 86.6 


Total 


433 




531 



1008 Chaco Artifacts 



greathouse sites, the frequency of triangular manos is 
similar for both types of sites. This suggests that use 
of the new grinding stroke extended to both great- 
house and small-house sites. 

Conclusions 

Manos from Chaco Canyon showed little 
variability that could not be related to manner or 
duration of use. Almost all were made of sandstone. 
Length and width were very similar and were similar 
to other manos from comparable time periods in the 
Southwest. Manos from sites excavated by the Chaco 
Project seem to have been used almost exclusively on 
trough metates. 

The greatest variability was found in mano 
cross-section, thickness, weight, and grinding surface 
area. Variability in these attributes could be related 
to different stages in the use-life of a mano. 
Temporal variability was found in the occurrence of 
triangular and beveled manos which may be related 
to the development of a new grinding stroke. This 
new grinding stroke apparently was used in Chaco 
Canyon after A.D. 920, earlier than the A.D. 1100 
date proposed by Bartlett (1933), and may have been 
associated with the development of mealing bins and 
communal grinding areas in Chaco Canyon. 

References 

Bartlett, Katherine 

1933 Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff 
Region and their Relation to Others in the 
Southwest. A Study in Progressive 
Efficiency . Bulletin No 3, pp. 3-32. 
Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 

Cameron, Catherine M. 

1976 Chaco Manos. An Analysis of a Random 
Sample. Ms. on file, National Park Service 
Chaco Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

1977 An Analysis of Manos from Ten Sites in 
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Ms. on file, 
National Park Service Chaco Archive, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

1984 A Regional View of Chipped Stone Raw 
Material Use in Chaco Canyon. In Recent 
Research on Chaco Prehistory , edited by W. 
James Judge and John D. Schelberg, pp. 
137-152. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 



8. Division of Cultural Research, National 
Park Service, Albuquerque. 

Chapman, Richard C. 

1983 Groundstone. In The Gamerco Project: 
Flexibility as an Adaptive Response , 
compiled by Cherie Scheick, pp. 522-539. 
School of American Research, Archeology 
Division, Santa Fe. 

Eidenbach, Peter L., and Mark L. Wimberly 

1980 Archaeological Reconnaissance in White 
Sands National Monument, New Mexico . 
Human Systems Research, Inc., Tularosa, 

NM. 

Garrett, Elizabeth M. 

1988 The Geologic Setting of Kin Nahasbas, 
Chaco Canyon and Petrographic Analysis of 
Construction Material. In Historic Structure 
Report, Kin Nahasbas Ruin, Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park, New Mexico, by 
Frances Joan Mathien and Thomas C. 
Windes, pp. 301-305. Branch of Cultural 
Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Lancaster, James W. 

1983 An Analysis of Manos and Metates from the 
Mimbres Valley, New Mexico . Un- 
published Masters thesis, Department of 
Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

Lekson, Stephen H. 

1984 Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon . 
Publications in Archeology 18B, Chaco 
Canyon Studies. National Park Service, 
Albuquerque. 

Morris, Earl H. 

1939 Archaeological Studies in the La Plata 
District . Carnegie Institution, Publication 
No. 519, Washington, D.C. 

Toll, H. Wolcott 

1984 Trends in Ceramic Import and Distribution 
in Chaco Canyon. In Recent Research on 
Chaco Prehistory , edited by W. James Judge 
and John D. Schelberg, pp. 115-135. Re- 
ports of the Chaco Center No. 8. Division 
of Cultural Research, National Park Service, 
Albuquerque. 



Truell, Marcia L. 

1983 A Summary of Small Site Architecture in 
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Ms. on file, 
National Park Service Chaco Archive, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 
Revised and published in 1986 as Part II in 
Small Site Architecture of Chaco Canyon, 
New Mexico, by Peter J. McKenna and 
Marcia L. Truell, pp. 1 15-502. Publications 
in Archeology 18D, Chaco Canyon Studies. 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 



Vivian, R. Gordon, and Tom W. Mathews 

1965 Kin Kletso: A Pueblo HI Community in 
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico . Southwest 



Manos 1009 



Parks and Monuments Association, Tech- 
nical Series 6(1). Globe, AZ. 

Windes, Thomas C. 

1993 The Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 
29SJ 629, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico . 
Reports of the Chaco Center No. 12. 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 



Woodbury, Richard B. 

1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of North- 
eastern Arizona . Reports of the Awatovi 
Expedition No. 6. Peabody Museum, 
Cambridge. 



1010 Chaco Artifacts 



Appendix 8A 
Mano Analysis Form 



Attributes and recording methods are described 
below. Standard orientation is widest edge away 
from the observer, grinding surface face down. 
Edges are parallel to the long axis of the artifact, 
ends are perpendicular to the long axis of the artifact. 

Weight : Weight was measured to the nearest 
0.1 gram. 

Length : The maximum dimension of the 
longest axis of the artifact was measured to the 
nearest 1 millimeter. 

Width : The maximum dimension perpendicular 
to the length was measured to the nearest 1 
millimeter. 

Maximum thickness : The maximum dimen- 
sion perpendicular to the plane of the length and 
width measurements measured was to the nearest 1 
millimeter. 

Minimum thickness : The minimum dimension 
perpendicular to the plane of the length and width 
measurements was measured to the nearest 1 
millimeter. 

Burning : Burning was determined by color 
(black, red) or friability of the material. 

0) None. 

1) Partially. 

2) Completely. 

3) Utilized surface only. 

Material hardness : 

1) Very soft — material can be rubbed off with 
fingers. 

2) Soft — material scratches with fingernail. 

3) Medium soft— penny scratches material. 

4) Medium hard— penny scratches material 
slightly, leaves sparse copper. 

5) Hard— penny scratch barely evident, 
copper streak clearly evident. 

6) Very hard — penny leaves copper mark 
only. 

Color of material : A fresh break was always 



used to determine color. 

1) Tan. 

2) Gray. 

3) Mixed (tan/gray). 

4) Other. 

Exfoliation : Exfoliation or weathering was 
most frequently evident as the shedding of thin layers 
of material. 

1) Absent. 

2) Present. 

Previous form : The original form of the 
artifact prior to use as a mano was recorded as: 

1) Metate. 

2) Mano. 

3) Cobble. 

4) Concretion. 
9) Unknown. 

Grain size : Grain sizes were compared with 
the Grain Size and Shape Chart (Geological Specialty 
Company). A fragment of the material was crushed 
and examined with a 10X hand lens. 

1) Very fine 1/16-1/8 mm. 

2) Fine 1/8-1/4 mm. 

3) Medium fine 1/4-3/8 mm. 

4) Medium 3/8-1/2 mm. 

5) Medium coarse 1/2-6/8 mm. 

6) Coarse 6/8-1.0 mm. 

Portion of artifact represented: 

1) Whole. 

2) Greater than half. 

3) Less than half. 

4) Fragment — neither whole length nor whole 
width can be measured. 

5) One face missing — generally the result of 
exfoliation causing one face to lift off. 



Plan 


i view: The shape of the artifact, in stan 


dard orientation, in plan view. 


1) 


Oval. 


2) 


Rectangular. 


3) 


Trapezoid. 


4) 


Irregular. 


5) 


Broken/indeterminate. 



Manos 1011 



Cross-section : For observation of cross- 
section, the artifact is placed in standard orientation 
and then the left side is turned toward the observer. 



1) 
2) 
3) 
4) 
5) 
6) 
7) 
9) 



Rectangular. 

Beveled. 

Wedge. 

Triangular. 

Ovoid. 

Bi-tri angular. 

Discoidal. 

Unknown. 



D 

A 

o 



Longitudinal section : The longitudinal section 
was observed with the mano in standard orientation. 



1) 
2) 
3) 
4) 
9) 



Square. 

Convex. 

Bi-convex. 

Oval. 

Unknown. 






Relationship of edges : This observation was 
taken only on whole manos in standard orientation. 
The relationship between the two edges parallel to the 
long axis (length) was recorded. 

0) N/A. 

1) Parallel— edges equidistant from each 
other. 

2) Expanding right — the left portion of the 
near edge has been worn away. 

3) Expanding left — the right portion of the 
near edge has been worn away. 

4) Other. 

9) Unknown. 

Configuration of ends : The ends of the arti- 
fact were defined as the portions of the perimeter that 
are parallel to the direction of the grinding stroke. 

1) Canted. 

2) Straight. C 

3) Pointed. <Z 

4) Curved. Q 

5) Curved/slanted. 

6) Straight/slanted. 

7) Slanted/pointed. 

8) Other. 

9) Unknown. 

Technology of manufacture : All signs of the 
manufacture process that had not been obliterated by 
use were recorded. These were usually visible on 
edges. 

1) Chipped. 



2) Pecked. 

3) Smoothed, ground. 

4) 1,2 

5) 1,3 

6) 2,3 

7) 1, 2, 3 

Number of finger grooves : 

0) 

1) 1 

2) 2 

3) 3 

4) 4 

5) Groove for multiple digits. 

Number of primary use surfaces : The num- 
ber of surfaces on which evidence of grinding was 
found (when the grinding was not related to the 
secondary use of the item). Artifacts with beveled 
faces (cross-sections 2, 4, 6) were recorded as two 
use surfaces. 

0) (for mano blanks) 

1) 1 

2) 2 

3) 3 

4) 4 

The remainder of the analysis examined mano 
use. Face A was defined as the most heavily used 
face. If both sides were equally worn, then Face A 
was arbitrarily assigned to one. 

Area of grinding surface. Face A : The area 
of the grinding surface was measured to the nearest 
square centimeter using a centimeter grid on clear 
film. 

Grinding surface preparation. Face A : The 
amount of pecking or roughening present on the 
grinding surface of the mano. 

1) Very pecked— little or no abrasion. 

2) Pecking evident — moderate abrasion 
(polish only on ends). 

3) Pecking evident — heavy abrasion (polish in 
the center of the mano face as well as on ends). 

4) No pecking visible— surface totally 
abraded. 

5) Little pecking/little abrasion. 

Orientation of striations. Face A : 

0) Not visible. 

1) Reciprocal, perpendicular to the long axis. 



1012 Chaco Artifacts 



2) Rotary. 

3) Reciprocal, parallel to the long axis. 

4) 1, 3 (cross-hatched). 

Area of grinding surface. Face B : Same as 
Face A. 

Grinding surface preparation. Face B : Same 
as Face A. 

Orientation of striations. Face B : Same as 
Face A. 

The next set of variables examines reuse of the 
artifact. 

Number of secondary utilized surfaces : The 

number of areas on the artifact with evidence of 
utilization not relating to use as a mano. 

1) 1 

2) 2 

3) 3 

4) 4 



Location of secondary use: 


0) 


Other than those described below. 


1) 


Utilized face (mano use). 


2) 


Unutilized face. 


3) 


Edge. 


4) 


End. 


5) 


3,4 


6) 


1,2 


7) 


2,3 


8) 


2,4 


Characteristics of secondary use: Up to two 


wear types were recorded. 


1) 


Battering. 


2) 


Spalling/fire-cracking. 


3) 


Polish. 


4) 


Chipping. 


5) 


Pecking, cutting, gouging (other than 



resurfacing). 

6) Archeological evidence of reuse (post 
shim, building stone, etc.). 

7) Pigment. 

8) Striation/grinding. 

9) Slight grinding, polishing on unused 
surface. 

Other artifact type associated with mano : 

1) Hammerstone/pounder. 

2) Palette. 

3) Anvil. 

4) Abrader. 

5) Other. 

6) Chopper. 

7) Polisher. 

8) Post shim. 

9) Unknown. 

Number of tertiary utilized surfaces : The 

number of surfaces which exhibit a third kind of use 
(not associated with use as a mano and different from 
the secondary use described above). 

Location of tertiary use : Same as those for 
secondary use. 

Characteristics of tertiary use : Same as those 
for secondary use. 

Other artifact type associated with mano : 

Same as those for secondary use. 

Amount of use : A subjective assessment of 
amount of use as a mano, based on size, shape and 
surface characteristics. 

0) None — for mano blanks. 

1) Light. 

2) Moderate. 

3) Heavy. 

4) Worn out. 



Chapter Nine 



The Metates of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico 



John D. Schelberg 



Because all Bonitian metates are troughed, 
I did not recognize soon enough the 
possibility of a cultural lag. (Judd 
1954:135) 

Background 

Katherine Bartlett (1933) was the first to 
systematically consider the subject of Pueblo or 
Anasazi milling stones; she included manos, metates, 
mealing bins and their location within houses in both 
ethnographic and archeological settings. On the basis 
of her observations of the Hopi, she evaluated the 
archeological record of the Anasazi grinding complex 
in northern Arizona, and the subtitle of her 1933 
article, "A Study in Progressive Efficiency," set the 
tone for virtually all subsequent discussions of the 
changes in metate morphology. Simply stated, this 
view is that there has been an increase in the 
efficiency of the grinding surface of the manos and 
metates; this is a cause of the transition from trough 
to slab metates. Archeologists have not only general- 
ly accepted this conclusion but also Bartlett's notion 
that the change from trough metate to slab metate 
was a pan-Anasazi phenomenon which began during 
Pueblo II and ended by Early Pueblo III (Bartlett 
1933:23). 

Woodbury (1939) generally concurred with 
Bartlett when he analyzed the ground stone artifacts 
from site Be 51 in Chaco Canyon. In his 1954 
monograph concerning the stone tools from north- 
eastern Arizona, he discussed the reasons for and the 
value of analyzing stone tools as they relate to greater 
archeological problems. His epistemological con- 
cerns are perhaps too conservative by today's 
standards and diffusion is not as attractive a mecha- 
nism as it once was; nevertheless, he recognized the 



necessity of making generalizations about social 
systems and cultures as a whole. He considered two 
of the principal goals of archeology— the construction 
of chronological sequences and the determining of the 
geographic boundaries of cultures— to be the first 
steps which were necessary prior to the 
reconstruction of culture history. Choosing appro- 
priate "index fossils" to serve as diagnostic criteria 
for successive cultural periods would accomplish 
these goals. Among the characteristics necessary for 
index fossils, Woodbury listed abundance, successive 
variation, and geographic variation. Because he 
thought, on occasion, too much reliance was placed 
on pottery for the definition of a "culture," he 
suggested that stone artifacts would help in the choice 
of criteria with which to define the time and space 
framework. He considered archeology to be a 
method which assisted in the reconstruction of culture 
history rather than as a means for testing hypotheses 
(Woodbury 1954:16-17). 

Three of the more recent general Southwestern 
textbooks have continued these themes. McGregor's 
(1965) attributes the change in metate morphology to 
the processes of diffusion. The other two tacitly 
imply that diffusion was involved; however, they are 
more concerned with the argument of increasingly 
efficient grinding surfaces. Their data is from 
northern Arizona and they unfortunately extend the 
implications to the Southwest, with the suggestion 
that they have uncovered systematic regularities 
(Martin and Plog 1973, and especially Plog 1974). 
While the facts of a transition from trough to slab 
metate between Pueblo II and Pueblo III may be true 
in certain areas of the Southwest, one of the major 
points of this chapter will be to demonstrate that 
neither diffusion nor a change in morphology took 
place in the Chaco Anasazi region. If Bartlett, 



1014 Chaco Artifacts 



Martin, and Plog are correct that this is one area 
where this transition should have taken place, we can 
demonstrate that, by their own criteria, their implied 
systemic regularities are not pan-Southwestern. I will 
suggest several additional variables which are rele- 
vant to this problem and which were not previously 
considered. 

Carter (1977) pointed out that metates were not 
necessarily only associated with agriculture and were 
in fact in use in the Great Basin between 10,000 and 
2,000 B.P. They had a worldwide distribution. The 
major emphasis of his article is to demonstrate not 
only the association of metates with Paleo-Indians, 
but also that they go back as much as 80,000 years in 
the New World. Fortunately, we are concerned with 
agricultural societies only a few thousand years old 
and it will not be necessary to critically consider his 
evidence for extreme antiquity. 

Metates, from the Aztec metatl (Judd 1954: 
132), were used for grinding corn and other items in 
the Southwest and throughout Mexico and Central 
America. Early explorers and later ethnologists re- 
corded their use and occasionally the context of that 
use; modern researchers frequently cite specific cases 
to warrant archeological assumptions by indicating 
that a proposition has some basis in fact. From 
Hawikuh, Coronado wrote in 1540 that, "They have 
the very best arrangement and machinery for grinding 
corn that was ever seen. One of these Indian women 
here will grind as much as four of the Mexicans" 
(Judd 1954:133). Ethnologists observed the Pueblos 
grinding both domestic and wild foodstuffs for 
everyday consumption, clay for pottery, pigments for 
paint, pollen for ceremonies (often with some shell 
and/or turquoise ground in), various plants and herbs 
for medicinal purposes, etc. A more esoteric obser- 
vation was Titiev's (1972:142-143), who recorded 
that the Hopi women collect stones for metates 
between March and the first appearance of peach 
blossoms because the stones are "cold" and would 
cause frost if gathered out of season. They may be 
installed at any time, however. Every Hopi woman 
spent at least three hours per day over her metate in 
1899 (Dorsey in Woodbury 1954:64) and Bartlett was 
told by the Hopi that each family used one large bowl 
(about three quarts) of cornmeal every day. Usually 
10 to 20 bowls were kept on hand (Bartlett 1933:3). 

It was frequently recorded that metates and/or 
manos were graded in degrees of coarseness (coarse, 



medium, and fine) and archeologists are delighted 
when they find a prehistoric example of a modern 
observation. Other recorded facts include the 
construction and location of metate bins, the number 
per house, and the number of houses with them. 
Roughly one-half of the homes at Cochiti had mealing 
bins (Lange 1959:68); every Hopi house had at least 
two mealing bins in 1932 (Bartlett 1933:14). The 
number of manos per metate (six at Cochiti) is 
frequently noted and this ratio is usually calculated by 
archeologists (Lange 1959:117). 

Lange (1959:117) explicitly noted that many 
anthropologists assumed that hammerstones were used 
exclusively for chipping and flaking stone artifacts; 
however, his observations at Cochiti were that they 
were used much more frequently for "sharpening up" 
the grinding stones, especially the manos. "Grinding 
sessions were inevitably preceeded by sharpening or 
roughing the grinding surfaces of the implements. " 
This was also recorded by Bandelier in 1880 (in 
Lange 1959) and a number of Chaco archeologists, 
including Roberts (1929:133) and Judd (1954:135), 
were careful to point this out. Bartlett (1933:4) was 
told that the Hopi of the 1880s used to sharpen the 
metates once every five days. 

I did not conduct an intensive review of the 
Southwestern ethnographic literature in the hopes of 
ferreting out all the references to metates. Given the 
general absence of quantification (i.e., for rates, or 
time, or distance, etc.) in this literature, the most that 
would be achieved would be a relatively complete list 
of specific items that were ground. It is clear that 
metates were utilized for grinding anything that had 
to be ground. 

Appendix 9A provides a review of the 
archeological literature for Chaco Canyon sites, a 
select few Chacoan outliers (but includes most for 
which any printed material was available), and 
several sites from Mesa Verde (for comparison). 
The review focused on the numbers and forms of 
metates, the numbers of manos and hammerstones, 
and mealing bins, primarily because the ethnographic 
literature frequently discussed these items. 

Research Orientations 

In very early reports — when all objects 
discovered were new in the experience of 
the finders — fairly detailed descriptions 



Metates 1015 



were given of metates and manos. After 
that milling stones were no novelty, and 
moreover, they were too cumbersome to 
be taken back to a laboratory for study, 
and so we have the beginning of the long 
period when metates were described as 
being "of the usual type." (Bartlett 
1933:3) 

For many decades, the context in which 
research occurred in the Southwest was to clarify 
time periods and the origin and subsequent spread of 
cultural traits across the landscape. As far as the 
cumbersome metate was concerned, the general 
outline of its history was considered to be sufficiently 
understood by the 1930s — as Bartlett' s lament 
indicates. She was particularly distressed because she 
felt that manos and metates were the most important 
aspect of the Anasazi tool kit — they were an 
agricultural people heavily dependent on maize for 
their subsistence (Bartlett 1933, 1936). She also 
recognized their dependence on wild products. 

Bartlett studied the change in metate 
morphology from basin to trough to slab metates. 
Because of increasing grinding surface area, she 
considered the sequence representative of increasing 
efficiency. The final transition to slab metates was 
thought to represent the peak of the efficiency 
response (in conjunction with a number of factors 
including increased numbers of rooms per house, the 
advantage of having to deal with the smaller rocks 
that slab metates required, and the social advantages 
and interaction created by specified grinding areas 
which contained multiple metates so that several 
women could grind simultaneously, etc.). The 
transition from trough to slab metate began in Late 
Pueblo II times and ended by Early Pueblo III (ca. 
A.D. 1100s). 

These conclusions were accepted by succeeding 
generations of archeologists as being essentially 
true — of course, there were the expected variations in 
the details of the sequence or the time of the 
transition from region to region. In an effort to find 
dated references to the appearance of items of 
material culture, subsequent researchers concerned 
with more than a single site devoted a great deal of 
energy to exhaustive reviews of the literature. These 
references were then arranged by type and date, and 
the diffusion process and pathways were delineated. 
Maps with numerous arrows indicated the progress 



from the earliest to the latest appearances (e.g., 
Woodbury 1939, 1954). The fact that the race of 
maize depended on by the Anasazi has changed 
through time was pointed out; however, only recently 
has this factor been examined with respect to metates. 

With the advent of the New Archeology in the 
1960s, it was only natural that manos and metates 
were evaluated. Martin and Plog (1973) and Plog 
(1974) did not actually propose any radically new 
interpretations for metates. In fact they reiterated 
Bartlett's notion of increasingly efficient grinding 
surfaces through time. The context of the argument, 
however, was quite different; they were very 
concerned with an ecological approach and the 
concomitant consequences of sedentism and 
increasing reliance on agricultural products. In the 
long run, this would require an increasingly efficient 
adaptation in order for a larger population to survive 
in a generally marginal environment. Because of an 
underlying (but unstated) assumption that the Anasazi 
everywhere were basically the same through all time, 
they implied that their findings were applicable to all 
Anasazi, as did Bartlett, Woodbury, and everyone 
else. This is one of the unfortunate results of too 
heavy a reliance on arguments of ethnographic 
analogy, derived from a time when there were 
similarities in the lifestyle of the Anasazi and a result 
of not critically assessing the specific characteristics 
of the area under investigation. 

In an attempt to transcend simple descriptive 
statistics, relatively general arguments of increased 
efficiency, and to better understand Southwestern 
adaptation— both synchronically and diachron- 
ically — two long-term proposals have recently been 
advanced. Both incorporate metates into their 
respective arguments. While the arguments are 
plausible in theory, they are not realistic because of 
insufficient appreciation for the realities of the 
archeological record. One investigator (Hill 1976) 
proposed to monitor changes in dependence on 
agriculture for inhabitants of the Pajarito Plateau, 
monitored (in part) by metate frequency as recorded 
by survey (and supplemented by excavation). The 
other investigator (Hard, personal communication 
1981, 1986) was more concerned with focusing on 
metates in an ethnographic setting to gain a better 
understanding of the activities associated with 
metates. He then hoped to be able to calculate the 
volume of metates and develop an index that 
determined the amount of ground corn and faunal 



1016 Chaco Artifacts 



material. Other factors were the site population and 
the use-life of metates. Because it was necessary to 
look at metates from a series of sites, he proposed 
that additional information could be gathered from 
survey and a review of the literature. 

Problems associated with data from either 
survey or the literature include such observations as 
Bandelier's (in Lange 1959:117), in which he stated 
that the Mexicans ransacked the ruins looking for 
metates. Woodbury (1954:54) noted that they (i.e., 
The Peabody Museum Awatovi Expedition) regularly 
gave good Anasazi metates to Hopi women; tourists 
and pot hunters who collected them were another 
problem. Many site reports do not record the total 
number of metates or manos recovered. Others 
report the results without specifying the sample size 
and it is impossible to discern if the total or some 
fraction thereof is being discussed. Others discuss 
those from fill and floor contexts and note that many 
(or some) were used in construction. These problems 
must be considered before making specific quantified 
statements of the kinds proposed. 

Another issue relevant to this problem is more 
directly concerned with the archeology of complex 
societies. Such factors as the modification of rooms 
by the addition of subsequent floors, partition walls, 
or a major change in room function, such as the 
insertion of a kiva into a living room, causes major 
reorganization of the room's facilities. Stone tools 
need maintenance during their use-life and 
replacement after wearing out; the worn-out items are 
recycled into other contexts— often more than once. 
Clean-up activities disrupt the primary context of the 
archeological record. 

There seems to be an inherent failure to 
appreciate the amount of prehistoric metate movement 
within and even between sites and the degree of reuse 
in post-grinding contexts. A good example of the 
problems which could result from uncritically relying 
on the distribution of metates, as recorded by site 
survey, occurred in Marcia's Rincon in Chaco 
Canyon. There was a cluster of 15 sites in a 1-km- 
radius; one, 29SJ 633, had over 150 metate 
fragments on the surface while the other sites in the 
area had few. The sites spanned several hundred 
years and at least portions of most were occupied at 
the same time. It was semi-seriously suggested that 
29SJ 633 was a specialized corn grinding site for 
others in the rincon or even for some of the 



inhabitants of the greathouses (given Hill's 
programmatic statements, he would likely concur). 
It is clear from the test excavations, however, that the 
final inhabitants of 29SJ 633 (possibly "Mesa Verde" 
immigrants moving into a generally deserted canyon) 
were scrounging metates from the other sites in the 
rincon and using them in wall construction. Of the 
over 150 fragments recovered from the surface, after 
testing, not one was clearly used as a grinding tool at 
this site. 

Examples of within site movement away from 
the primary context of grinding are easier to 
document; the obvious examples of metates used in 
the construction of walls, firepits, plugs, and post 
shims occurred at most Chacoan sites. Of the more 
than 30 possible metate "bins" (including grist 
troughs, catchment basins, etc.) excavated by the 
Chaco Project, none contained a metate. From all 
excavated sites in the Canyon there are few in situ 
metates. One four-compartment mealing bin with 
four metates was found in Chetro Ketl, Room 35 
(Unnumbered photo, Chaco Archives; Woodbury 
1939:65). Roberts (1929) found several in 
Shabik'eshchee Village (including several leaning 
against a wall in the "normal" storage position for 
the time period). Adams (1951) found two similar 
metates in Half House, and Bradley (1971) found 
several at Be 236— a very late ("Mesa Verde") site. 
Pepper (1920) found several huge examples at Pueblo 
Bonito, including a boulder with five troughs. Of 
those in which context can be determined, less than 
10 percent of the total metates recovered were in 
their primary context. Such a situation is not unusual 
for other Southwestern sites. 

The local Chacoan archeological record became 
increasingly complex as the number of sites, 
population, and site and material reuse increased. 
When dealing with the archeology of complex 
societies, there is no guarantee that the material 
recovered, especially from the surface, was in its 
primary context at that location or even at that site. 
Chacoan metates provided an attractive target for 
reuse in construction because they were frequently 
thin and already shaped. Simply breaking them 
prepared them for use. Less than 12 metates were 
clearly worn out or "killed," and most appeared to 
have a substantial use-life remaining. Why someone 
who is dependent on grinding seeds and grain on a 
daily basis would break up a perfectly good metate 
for reuse in construction is rather enigmatic. 



Metates 1017 



The process of metate matching was used to 
document within-site movement at 29SJ 389, 29 SJ 
391, and 29SJ 629. Matches were made between 
fragments found on the surface, from wall clearing, 
and from proveniences within and between rooms, 
pithouses, and kivas. A match is simply the rejoining 
of two or more separate fragments into the original 
piece. As noted in Appendix 9B, pieces from any 
one metate ended up in a diverse number of 
proveniences. These matches were as varied as a 
single metate that was broken up to construct a single 
slab-lined hearth in Room 147 at 29SJ 389, to pieces 
of an individual metate being used as architectural 
elements of the ventilator shaft of Pithouse 2, where 
a matching fragment was used as a post shim in 
Room 9 at 29SJ 629 (see also Windes 1993). 

Of the many matches from Pueblo Alto, one 
was between a fragment from the construction of the 
south wall of Room 143 and a fragment from the 
west wall of Room 3, Plaza Feature 1 — a distance of 
50 m. This has obvious implications for 
investigations predicated on quantifying the total 
number of metates from a site. An average of 12 
percent of the total number of fragments was matched 
at 29SJ 629 and Pueblo Alto; within-provenience 
matches were sometimes much higher. Matching 
reduces the total possible number of individual 
metates represented at any site and precludes using a 
simple count of individual fragments on the surface 
as an index for, among other things, agricultural 
intensification or specialization. Pot hunters, 
reconstruction, recycling, and prehistoric scrounging 
are all factors which complicate the archeological 
record; pristine sites, especially in an area that was 
occupied for so long, are very rare in Chaco Canyon. 

There is yet another kind of problem which has 
to do with the archeologist rather than the archeolo- 
gy. Because of a prevalent attitude that metates are 
"of the usual type" or "seen one, you've seen them 
all," the literature and field notes indicate an uncriti- 
cal approach to the analysis or classification of meta- 
tes. As a result, abraders and other miscellaneous 
objects are analyzed as metates. Some are only un- 
worked fortuitously shaped rocks. This complicates 
any study which is based on a review of the literature 
(Appendix 9A) because one can never be certain of 
the veracity of the reporting. Such errors range from 
the very obvious— such as artifact No. 173 from Be 
288, the Gallo Cliff Dwelling (29SJ 540), which was 



labeled a trough metate when it was actually a 
passive abrader of soft sandstone — to the less obvi- 
ous, such as several abraders found at Long House 
(Wheeler in Cattanach 1980:261, Figure 303c-d), 
which were identified in an illustration as slab meta- 
tes. They may have originally been slab metates, but 
their final use was probably as abraders. Rather than 
having been a trough metate which was later used as 
a slab metate on the opposite side, as was suggested 
(Hayes and Lancaster 1975:152, Figure 191b), this 
was probably a multifunctonal tool which was 
simultaneously used as a passive abrader on the 
reverse side. Even the generally experienced Chaco 
Center staff submitted 19 abraders and fortuitously 
shaped rocks (0.05 percent of the metate fragments) 
for analysis as metates. Loose (1979) reported a 
number of slab metates from 29SJ 299; however, 
they were all abraders. The section concerning 
terminology has additional classificatory problems. 

What then is the use of analyzing metates? 
There are a number of issues that will be 
examined — some are descriptive and a few are more 
theoretically oriented. It will be pointed out that 

1) metates, in addition to being used for 
grinding a variety of materials (which is clearly 
already known), were multifunctional tools during 
their life as a metate (which seems to be less 
generally recognized and much less quantified), 

2) metates were extensively reused after they 
ceased being metates and certain aspects of this may 
be indicative of general levels of social organization, 

3) the amount of energy invested in the metate 
(in terms of procurement, shaping, finishing, and its 
reuse) varied through time and is, in part, a reflection 
of the social organization of the system of which it 
was a component, and 

4) the argument of an increasingly efficient 
grinding surface, as represented by the sequence of 
basin to trough to slab metate, is clearly not as 
general a trend as Bartlett (1933), Woodbury (1954), 
Martin and Plog (1973), and Plog (1974) indicate. 
This is an important point because Martin and Plog 
(1973:216-217) imply that this "fact" is a cultural 
universal in the Southwest. If ever there were a 
portion of the Anasazi world which necessitated 
efficiency, it was the world of the Chacoans. 



1018 Chaco Artifacts 





k^.*^' '££.' J .iM:-^Zrj£i—& ti 





Figure 9. 1. Types of metates. A) Basin metate with one-hand mano. B) Trough metate (one end closed) 
and two-hand mano. C) Trough metate (both ends open) and two-hand mano. D) Slab 
metate with two-hand mano. (Adapted from Eddy [1964].) 



Terminology 

There is a certain amount of confusion in the 
literature which stems from the general nature of the 
English language and the subsequent citation of only 
a portion of a previously published statement. For 
example, Morris (1939) described thick and thin 
trough metates and sometimes referred to the latter as 
slablike or slabs because the thin pieces of stone 
resembled slabs and not because they were slab (i.e., 
flat surface/troughless) metates. Judd (1954) was 
careful to point this out because Bartlett and others 
subsequently misrepresented the metates at Pueblo 
Bonito because they assumed Pepper was talking 
about flat surface metates. 

For the purposes of this report, the terminology 
will generally follow Bartlett (1933). She discussed 
basin, trough, and slab metates. Basin metates are 
often associated with Archaic sites in the Southwest 
and are the result of a rotary grinding motion with a 
small, one-hand mano (Figure 9.1 A). No basin 
metates were analyzed for this report (none were 
recovered). Trough metates are those which resulted 



from grinding in a reciprocal motion with a two-hand 
mano which was smaller than the surface of the 
metate; the result was the creation of lateral edges 
and frequently, a shelf at the near-end (the end 
closest to the miller). Eventually, the shelf at the 
near-end was eliminated and the trough went 
completely through the stone, leaving only the two 
lateral edges remaining. Thus, the length of the 
trough determines two types of metates. A closed- 
end metate has a trough which is less than the length 
of the stone, with a shelf at the near-end (Figure 
9. IB). A metate is open at both ends if the trough 
traverses the full length of the stone (Figure 9.1C). 
Slab metates (Figure 9. ID) resulted from use of a 
mano which was as wide as the metate surface; no 
edges or shelves exist. 

Unfortunately, two semantic problems exist 
concerning trough metates, which hopelessly 
complicate many previously published analyses. 
There are some trough metates which essentially do 
not have a shelf at the near-end but which are still 
clearly closed at the near end (Figure 9. IB, Figure 
9. 2 A and B, and Appendix B). The only real 



Metates 1019 




B 




Figure 9.2. Trough metate fragments without shelf, but clearly closed at 

one end: A) FS 1132 from Pueblo Alto (29SJ389), Room 103, 

Test Pit 5, Layer 1. B) FS 120 from Pueblo Alto, Circular 

Structure 1. (5 cm scales) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative Nos. 

14220 and 14198.) 



1020 Chaco Artifacts 



difference is the fact that the length of the near-end 
"shelf" is variable, and in the Chaco collection, it 
varies from less than 1 cm to over 18 cm in length 
(Figures 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, and 9.6). The upper surface, 
however, is the same height as the lateral shelves, 
and there is a continuous, non-undulating upper 
surface across the lateral shelves and the near-end. 
Unfortunately, many investigators classify a metate 
with a very narrow near-end shelf as open at both 
ends (e.g., Hayes for 29SJ 627 and 29SJ 1360; see 
also Hayes and Lancaster 1975:151, Figures 189, 
190; or Swannack 1969:109, Figure 97c-e). This is 
clearly not the case. 

One problem that results from this curious and 
incorrect labeling is that trough metates which are 
actually open at both ends are, in certain 
archeological sequences, intermediate between closed- 
at-one-end metates and slab metates. Both of the 
Mesa Verde sites noted above, Badger House and Big 
Juniper House, span this entire sequence; however, 
neither the number nor the context of those which are 
open at both ends can be determined from the 
published reports. This cavalier description led at 
least one Chaco Project archeologist to label a portion 
of a Chacoan site as late because of the supposed 
existence of a number of metates which were open at 
both ends. In fact, not only were there none at this 
site, but the entire canyon has yielded less than 35 
such metates, representing only 0.5 percent of the 
total recovered from all sites. For this report, only 
those metates that are actually open at both ends will 
be so classified (Figure 9.1C). 

The second semantic problem is perhaps less 
serious. A type of trough metate, referred to as "The 
Utah Type," is based on examples from southeastern 
Utah. One of the primary defining criteria of this 
type is a rectangular "box" pecked into the shelf at 
the near-end. Because metates with and without the 
box co-occurred in the sites in Utah, the name "Utah 
Type" was often casually associated with both. Any 
given Southwestern archeological site report is likely 
to refer to "the so-called Utah type metate," 
sometimes noting that the box was absent. When 
describing several sites in Chaco Canyon, Hayes 
referred to some metates with shelves at the near-end 
as "Utah." He does not, however, mention the 
"box," so there were probably no Utah metates, as 
originally defined, found in the canyon. None were 
recovered by the Chaco Project. 



For the purposes of this report, the term, 
"Utah" metate, will refer only to those which have a 
box ground into the shelf at the near-end. Those 
metates without a box but with a shelf at the near-end 
are "closed-at-one-end"— no matter how short the 
shelf. Given the restricted distribution of the Utah 
type and its comparatively small surface area, it is 
necessary to maintain this distinction. 

There are only several possible Utah-type 
metates from Chaco Canyon, and these are all from 
Pueblo Bonito. Pepper (1920:60, Figure 18b) 
illustrated one, as did Judd (1954:140, Plate 26. A). 
Judd (1954:139) indicated that this was a local type 
because they found fragments of several others. 
Because of the care with which the metate was 
constructed and its context, Pepper thought its 
function was ceremonial and Judd concurred. Judd 
(1954) indicated that the rectangular depression was 
in its upper end (i.e., at the near-end). It is difficult 
to determine from the photograph; however, I would 
suggest, based on the apparent morphology of the 
trough, that the depression is actually at the far end. 
Therefore, it is very probable that these were a local 
type and not a Utah type. Given that the grinding 
surface area of Judd's is approximately 336 cm 2 and 
that his and Pepper's were apparently recovered in 
the vicinity of kivas, it is a reasonable assumption 
that these were for ceremonial purposes only. It is 
likely that no true Utah metates have been recovered 
in Chaco Canyon. 

Finally, the third major type of metate is the 
slab metate. This resulted from use of a mano which 
was as wide as the metate surface and, therefore, no 
lateral edges or near-end shelf were created by the 
grinding process. The majority of these metates were 
permanently fixed in mealing bins with upright stone, 
or occasionally wooden sides, which functioned to 
contain the ground meal. Usually the stone that was 
used was smaller than that needed for a trough 
metate. In this report, slab metates are those with a 
flat surface. 

Change in Morphology 

There are several aspects to the frequently 
discussed transition from basin to slab metate. The 
first concerns the morphology of the metate and its 
grinding surface. Another aspect is the location 
and/or degree of permanency of the metate in a bin. 



Metates 1021 




Figure 9.3. Trough metate fragment (FS 1133) with 19 cm near-end 
shelf. From Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Room 103, Test Pit 
5, Layer 2. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative 
No. 14224.) 




Figure 9.4. Trough metate fragment with irregular, wide, near-end shelf. 
From wall clearing ofKiva 2 at Pueblo Bonito (29SJ 389). 
(15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 17954.) 



1022 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 9. 5. Trough metate fragment (FS 922) with rectangular near- 
end shelf. From Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Plaza Feature 
1, Test Pit 5, Layer 2. (15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco 
Archive Negative No. 23625.) 




Figure 9.6. Trough metate fragment (FS 2715) with rectangular near- 
end shelf. From Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Room 142, Test 
Trench 1, Level 11. (15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive 
Negative No. 23604.) 



Metates 1023 



The generalized statements from the literature 
indicate that the earliest Anasazi metates 
(Basketmaker and Pueblo I) were troughs in generally 
unshaped, relatively thick, flat slabs that were not 
permanently fixed into a bin; they were fully portable 
and were leaned against the wall when not needed 
(e.g., Roberts 1929:133). 

Later (nominally Early Pueblo II), as houses 
became larger, with more rooms and more substantial 
investment in the construction of the walls, work 
areas were more formalized and metates were moved 
to bins. The arguments vary, but the general trend 
is that trough metates were initially put in the bins, 
then as the Anasazi "learned" or "discovered" that the 
function of a bin was similar to the shelves 
surrounding the trough, they began to eliminate the 
shelves. The first to go was the near-end shelf; the 
resultant metate was open at both ends but retained 
the lateral shelves. The argument that the idea 
"arrived" was bolstered by finding occasional metates 
that had been made by battering the near-end off and 
then using it in the open-at-both-end style. Judd 
(1954:140, Plate 30B) illustrated one example which 
he thought fit this pattern. Finally, the lateral shelves 
were perceived as unnecessary and were eliminated 
by using a mano which covered the upper surface. 
Sometime during this sequence the metates were 
permanently fixed in the bin by setting it into an 
adobe bed (e.g., Bartlett 1933). 

Progressive advancement of the Anasazi intellect 
is a frequently implied or stated reason underlying 
this sequence of metate morphology (Bartlett 1933, 
1936; Woodbury 1939, 1954; etc.). Bartlett 
(1933:29), however, did point out that with each 
change in metate morphology (and assumed increase 
in grinding surface area), the permanent location in 
a grinding bin, and the creation of specific grinding 
areas, the task of grinding corn became "easier or 
quicker or more sociable." This idea was 
subsequently formalized by Martin and Plog (1973), 
who indicated that the grinding surface grew more 
efficient through time. Plog (1974:139-141) 
expanded on this theme ("less efficient surfaces were 
replaced by more efficient ones"), using evidence 
from Arizona sites. This sequence is considered 
completed by A.D. 1000. Even though only data 
from a portion of Arizona was examined, Plog 
implies that this was a pan-Southwestern event. This 
generalization, however, is based simply on the 



change from basin to slab metate, and in this broad 
a conceptualization, it is generally true. 

Bartlett (1933:26) noted that during Pueblo II 
(A.D. 1050 to 1300) both trough and slab metates co- 
occurred in bins. Slab metates are usually listed as 
a Pueblo III trait. Unfortunately, this sequence has 
been perpetuated for Chaco Canyon. In his listing of 
traits by time period, Hayes (1981:30, 32) apparently 
uncritically accepted it and noted that metates, open- 
at-both-ends and set in a bin, replaced those open-at- 
one-end during Early Pueblo m. During Late Pueblo 
m, he said that slab metates in bins were used (along 
with "heirloom" trough metates). The less than 35 
slab metates (less than 0.5 percent) from all 
excavated sites in Chaco Canyon represent almost 
nothing; therefore, either the Chacoans never made it 
to Pueblo III or they were not concerned with 
increasing efficiency in their marginal environment 
(see Schelberg 1982 for discussion of environmental 
parameters). It is necessary to consider other factors 
than time or increasing "efficiency" as the only 
causes of grinding surface variation. 

Plog's formulation of the efficiency argument is 
curious because it promotes increasing the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the grinding surface. 
He noted that the surface of the manos grew to 50 
percent larger, but he said nothing about the metates. 
That the surface area increased in a general sequence 
from basin to slab metate is true; the crucial 
difference is between the trough and slab surfaces. 
It is not technically correct to say that "less efficient 
surfaces were replaced by more efficient ones" (Plog 
1974: 139) because efficiency is usually measured by 
some form of input-output equation. Something is 
more efficient if the same job can be done in less 
time or if a higher output can be achieved during the 
same time; therefore, if there were more efficiency in 
anything, it was the grinding process whereby more 
meal was obtained in the same time period or the 
same amount of meal was obtained in less time. 

From Plog's presentation, we must assume that 
with each morphological change in metates, the 
grinding surface area increased in portions of 
Arizona. This is not, however, the case in the Chaco 
region, when comparing the areas of trough and slab 
metates. The area of the Chaco Canyon slab metate 
from 29SJ 629 is 777 cm 2 (N= 1), compared to 1,024 
cm 2 for the 44 trough metates whose area could be 



1024 Chaco Artifacts 



calculated from Pueblo Alto (Appendix 9E). The 
slab metate area represents a net loss of 247 cm 2 . On 
the average, the Chacoan open-at-two-end trough 
metates were smaller than the open-at-one-end forms 
(Appendix 9E). This was also the case at the Salmon 
Ruin, a Chacoan outlier, where the area for the slab 
metates was 935 cm 2 , compared to 1,187 cm 2 for the 
trough metates (Shelley 1980:110). The latter 
example represents a net loss of 252 cm 2 and is 
exactly the opposite situation as that predicted by 
Plog. Similar net losses occur if the averages of 
trough metate and slab metate grinding surfaces are 
compared from Pueblo Bonito, Una Vida, or Rabbit 
Ruin (Appendix 9E). Also in Appendix 9E is an 
additional discussion of the problems associated with 
the determination of grinding surface area. 

As with any archeological situation, a number 
of factors were causally related to the overall form 
and location of metates. Two which were generally 
not considered by the researchers discussed above 
include the properties of the corn being ground and 
the utilization of space within a site. The latter will 
be discussed later. One of the underlying causal 
factors cited in the change from basin to trough 
metates is that a relatively high yield domestic crop 
was increasingly relied on and that a greater amount 
of meal could be ground more effectively because of 
the larger grinding area and the reciprocal grinding 
motion associated with trough metates. Yet the 
argument concerning the transition from trough to 
slab metates centers around increased learning 
capacities of the Anasazi. There is no reason to 
exclude another, though less dramatic, shift in the 
nature of the material (in this case maize) being 
ground. There are several aspects to this argument 
including the hardness of the kernels and the race or 
strain of corn in the area. 

Cutler suggested (Mollie Toll, personal 
communication 1996) that a number of races of maize 
with differing requirements and productivities were 
introduced into the Southwest through time. With 
respect to these factors, it is not unreasonable to 
consider the grinding surface morphology. Bartlett 
(1933) suggested as much when she noted that the 
function of the edge of a trough metate was to keep 
the kernels within the grinding surface and that once 
metates were placed in bins, this function was 
replaced by the sides of the bin. I attempted to 
consider the relationship of the kind of corn and 



metate from the literature; however, the problems of 
preservation and/or very general presentation 
precluded many useful observations. 

Unfortunately, the archeological record of the 
canyon will be of little utility for this problem 
because of the nature of the preservation, general 
lack of association, and the difficulty with identifying 
the very small diameter corn cobs recovered during 
our excavation. Because we have so few slab 
metates, if the generalizations from the literature are 
accurate, I would expect that the corn from the 
Chaco Canyon sites (except perhaps for the late Mesa 
Verde affiliated sites) would be the earlier varieties 
(Chapalote related) with about 12 rows of kernels per 
ear rather than the late hybrid varieties of Chapalote 
and Maize de Ocho . It would be interesting to know 
the moisture and growing season requirements of 
these varieties of corn; perhaps Chaco Canyon was 
climatically unfavorable for certain varieties. 

Related to this problem is the hardness of the 
maize kernels which varies from the earlier flint corn 
(named for the hardness of the kernels) to the later 
softer flour corn. One of the postulated functions of 
the large, often featureless and usually empty rooms 
at the Chacoan greathouses is food storage, perhaps 
used as a buffering mechanism for local and regional 
problems and populations (Judge et al. 1981; 
Schelberg 1979). Even kernels of the softer flour 
corn dry out and become harder after storage; 
therefore, a continuing function existed for the 
shelves of the trough metate. It is interesting that 
one of the latest sites in the canyon to be occupied 
had a preponderance of slab metates (Bradley 1971). 
This site was occupied after the demise of the 
extensive Chacoan regional system and at a time 
when the more restricted social organization was 
based on local family or extended family ties. The 
amount of com stored would only have to suffice for 
this relatively small number of persons for one winter 
season at a time — the kernels would be less dried out 
and the race of com may have been different. There 
is some evidence for this because all of the six 
charred corn cobs recovered were the eight-row 
variety (Bradley 1971:51). 

Experimentation by the staff of the Salmon Ruin 
indicates that flour corn is much easier to grind than 
flint com. The flour corn kernels are easily crushed 
by pressing on them prior to grinding, whereas the 



Metates 1025 



flint kernels must be impacted with a mano; this 
tends to shatter the kernels and sends pieces flying 
(Shelley 1980:112). 

Additional evidence comes from the excavation 
at the Salmon Ruin where, during the Primary (that 
is, Chacoan) occupation, 75 percent of the metates 
were trough and 22 percent were slab. During the 
Chacoan occupation, the predominant corn variety 
was flint. During the Secondary Occupation (that is, 
Mesa Verde) the trough metates comprised 21 percent 
of the total and the slab metates were 77 percent of 
the total. A "significant admixture" of flour corn 
was associated with the Mesa Verde occupation 
(Shelley 1980:107 and 112). 

As with any event, many causal factors are 
involved. It is clear that in this case the variety of 
corn and perhaps the hardness of the kernels that 
were being ground were more influential in 
determining the morphology of the grinding surface 
of the metate than was an attempt at maximizing 
some sort of efficiency per se— especially in light of 
the decrease in the surface area suffered by the slab 
metates. 

The Analysis 

Metates are one of the many tools relied upon 
by prehistoric Southwestern groups and are 
ubiquitous in Anasazi archeological sites. Since 
metates were not easily transported prehistorically 
and were generally procured from the immediate 
vicinity, archeologists have spent a greater research 
effort on small portable tools made from silicious 
rocks whose quarry sources may be discovered. The 
procurement, production, and movement of raw 
materials and finished tools across space is central to 
arguments of population movement, trade, exchange, 
and production. Meanwhile, metates and other 
ground stone tools are usually treated in a perfunctory 
set of tables. 

Unlike projectile points and other silicious tools, 
metates were used daily and provided the means for 
the greatest portion of the daily meals. Undoubtedly, 
the makers and users of ground stone followed a 
selection process similar to that surrounding silicious 
tools. Stones cannot be too soft or their use-life will 
be too short; cracks or fissures may cause them to 
break prematurely during use and maintenance. 
Early anthropologists in the Southwest reported sets 



of three or four metates or manos of increasingly 
fine-grain material which permitted the grinding of 
very fine meal; they also mentioned numbers of 
associated manos and hammerstones (e.g., Bartlett 
1933; Lange 1959). 

For this analysis, metates were treated as 
another tool in the overall Chacoan tool kit. Vari- 
ables were recorded to characterize the rock being 
used, to permit discussion of the manufacture and 
varied use of the metates, and to follow their journey 
into the archeological record. The selection of 
variables was guided by those used by other analysts 
and by the observations of the early ethnologists. No 
variables were recorded that have not been employed 
by other researchers; however, unlike many site 
reports, an attempt was made to systematically 
document metates rather than to provide only overall 
measurements and several comments. 

The Chacoan metates proved to be quite 
interesting. They were multipurpose, multifunctional 
tools which did not occur in graded series. They did 
not follow the purported general Southwestern 
sequence of trough metates open-at-one-end being 
replaced by trough metates open-at-two-ends, and 
finally being replaced .by slab metates. Statistically, 
slab metates were irrelevant and were, in fact, 
numerically almost nonexistent; the open-at-two-end 
trough form was almost as rare. The slab metates 
which were found had smaller grinding areas than 
many trough forms, contrary to the expectation of the 
arguments for increasing grinding efficiency through 
time as the forms of the metates change (Appendix 
9E). Trough metates were used in bins amd most 
were closed at one end. The vast majority of the 
metates were broken up prehistorically long before 
they were worn out. One-third of the broken pieces 
were recycled into other tools and several types of 
architectural elements before finally entering the 
archeological record. 

The archeology of complex societies frustrated 
the best efforts of the analysts to consider the 
observations of the early Southwestern ethnologists 
and other archeologists. Initially, the intent was to 
determine the proportions of manos, hammerstones, 
and metates as an interrelated tool kit necessary for 
the daily grind. It was hoped that the numbers of 
metates, manos, and hammerstones, their use-life, 
and the volume of meal ground per some unit could 
be determined. The continuous occupation and use of 



1026 Chaco Artifacts 



Chacoan sites by subsequent generations and the 
reuse following a period of abandonment resulted in 
changes in room function, the addition and removal 
of structures, and disruptions to the artifact 
assemblages. Not only were metates broken up, 
recycled into other tools and used in construction 
within a site, but pieces were also collected and taken 
to different sites for use in new construction. 

Changes wrought by the prehistoric Chacoans 
were sufficient to render the delineation of culturally 
meaningful tool ratios or other indices essentially 
meaningless. If any hope remained after several 
summers of excavation, following a survey of 
excavated sites in Chaco that too was dashed. The 
remaining metates' locations were dictated by the 
National Park Service goals of interpretation to the 
visitor and keeping the area cleaned up. Any vestiges 
of hope vanished during archival research replete 
with references to unspecified numbers of ground 
stone from Be 50 (for example), or specific numbers 
from a few miles south of Pueblo Bonito, or ground 
stone referenced in a 1904 letter from Richard 
Wetherill to the Field Museum of Natural History in 
Chicago, or an unlabeled photo of trough metates in 
a group of mealing bins. While some of the goals of 
the study were not realized, many others 
were — including several directly relevant to the 
archeology of complex societies. 

The analysis of metates was undertaken by two 
people. In 1975 and 1976, Jean Hooten analyzed 
those from 29SJ 423, 29SJ 1659 (Shabik'eshchee 
Village), 29SJ 628, 29SJ 299, 29SJ 724, 29SJ 1360, 
and 29SJ 627. Between 1976 and 1979, I analyzed 
those from 29SJ 629 (The Spadefoot Toad Site), 29SJ 
389 (Pueblo Alto), 29SJ 390 (Rabbit Ruin), 29SJ 391 
(Una Vida), 29SJ 827 (Be 362), and 29SJ 633 (The 
Eleventh Hour Site). The initial form was developed 
by Hooton (see Appendix 9C) and tested on a random 
sample of metates available at that time; during this 
process it was modified as conditions warranted. Her 
analysis of 29SJ 629 included only a portion of those 
that were ultimately recovered. Because I knew that 
more would be found from this site, I reanalyzed the 
ones she had done to become familiar with the 
process and to determine if any comparability existed 
between the two investigators. A comparison of the 
results was better than I had anticipated and 
discrepancies were often those of minor subjective 
interpretation. During this process, I modified the 
form to reflect other interests and to accommodate 



additional observations (see Appendix 9D). The 
differences in the forms will be presented in the 
Variables section. In 1981, the entire computer file 
was permanently modified to reflect the final form. 
Naturally, my observations are not recorded for 
Hooton 's sites. 

Depending on how complete each artifact was, 
forty-five variables could be recorded in computer 
format. When warranted, other observations were 
recorded separately (e.g., metate matches in 
Appendix 9B). Pieces that were too small to merit 
computer coding were weighed and measured and any 
other characteristics were noted (Appendix 9F). 
Every whole metate or fragment recovered was 
analyzed except for those from 29SJ 627, where 
Hooten analyzed a 50 percent sample due to the large 
number of mostly fragmentary pieces. 

Variables Recorded 

Variables 01 through 08 are provenience 
information and include the site number, the major 
provenience type and number, major location within 
the provenience, the type and number of the feature 
and its fill designation and layer number. This 
coding was identical to that used for the artifact 
inventory of each site. 

Variable 09, weight, was recorded in grams. 
Variables 10 through 12 recorded the length, width, 
and thickness to the nearest whole centimeter. If a 
fragment was sufficient for computer coding, it was 
weighed and measured, regardless of its 
completeness. 

Variable 13, burning, was recorded as none, 
partial, utilized surface, or complete. The latter 
variable was recorded only for sites 29SJ 629, 29SJ 
389, 29SJ 390, 29SJ 391, 29SJ 827, and 29SJ 633. 

Variable 14 was recorded differently by the two 
analysts. Hooton (Appendix 9C) used it for 
encrustation and recorded insignificantly, completely, 
or utilized surface. She was monitoring deposition of 
calcium carbonate in an attempt to differentiate 
between rocks picked up from the surface as opposed 
to rocks which may have been quarried. Based on 
her analysis of the random sample, however, she 
believed that it was not a useful variable to record 
and so I did not. When I began to analyze metates, 
a previously unrecorded attribute — floor wear — was 



Metates 1027 



monitored as light, medium, and heavy on the 
bottom, edge, or both. 

Variable 15, hardness, was devised by the 
ground stone analysts because the Mohs hardness 
scale was insufficient. A 1972 penny from the 
Denver mint was used to scratch the stone. Soft 
sandstone could be crumbled by hand; medium could 
be scratched with a fingernail. Hard sandstone 
scratched by a penny would leave some copper on the 
rock's surface. Very hard sandstone was not 
scratched, but a streak of copper remained. The 
hardness of the use surface was recorded and this was 
usually, although not always, the same as the other 
portions of the rock. 

Variable 16, color, was tan, gray, or 
interbedded, a combination of the two, or rarely, a 
combination of red and gray. Normally, the tan 
sandstone is the more massive of the two and makes 
up the bulk of the cliffs; the gray is thinner, harder, 
and occurs in discrete beds. 

Variable 17, geological structure, was an 
attempt to monitor two variables— based on a 
dichotomy of the thickness and the overall shape of 
the rock. The two variables were the stone (thinner 
and gray, much of which was quarried from the 
surrounding benches, and thicker and tan, much of 
which was available at the base of the cliffs) and the 
amount of effort (time and/or energy) that went into 
shaping the stone. Both of these variables (shape and 
effort) were assessed at several junctures of the 
analysis because variable 16 was too vague. Tabular 
metates were 8 cm and less in thickness and 
rectangular in shape. Tabular irregular were those 
that exhibited some attempt to make them more 
rectangular but they remained partially irregular. 
Massive irregular rectangular metates were less than 
rectangular. Massive fragments were greater than 8 
cm thick and those whose overall shape could not be 
determined. Eight centimeters was chosen as the 
demarcator following Judd's analysis (1954:135), 
which indicated that of the two principal groups of 
metates that he observed in Chaco, the second was at 
least three inches thick. 

Variable 18, grain size, was derived from the 
Mounted Sand Grain Folders made by the Geological 
Specialty Company. Fine: 0. 125-0.25 mm; medium: 
0.25-0.5 mm; very fine: 0.0625-0.125; medium fine: 
used to designate occasional pieces with less 



uniformly sorted grains; this is a mix of medium and 
fine. 

Variable 19, manufacture, was concerned with 
the specific kinds of modification to the rock prior to 
its use as a metate. These were most easily seen on 
the edges and bottom. Additionally, there were cases 
in which it was difficult or, occasionally, impossible 
to differentiate between manufacture and additional 
(simultaneous or post-metate) use. In such cases, a 
subjective assessment was made or it was recorded as 
unknown. The options were unmodified, chipped/ 
flaked, abraded, pecked, and combinations thereof. 

Variables 20-24 noted the dimensions of the 
utilized surface (the trough) and the near-end to the 
nearest whole centimeter. Only those which were 
complete were measured. The length was measured 
down the center— the distance the material being 
ground would have traveled along the stone. 
Unfortunately, Hooton (Appendix 9C) measured the 
width of the trough at the top and I measured it at the 
bottom, resulting in noncomparability between her 
sites and mine for this dimension. The maximum 
trough depth was generally in the center, 
approximately two-thirds of the length from the near- 
end. The measurement for the thinnest part of the 
trough was an actual measurement taken at whatever 
location was appropriate. Due to irregularities in the 
bottom of the rock, the thinnest part of the trough 
cannot be directly calculated by subtracting the depth 
of the trough from the thickness of the stone. The 
irregularities are not reflected in the measurement of 
the overall thickness of the stone as the latter is 
concerned with the maxium. The near-end shelf 
width was measured in the center. 

Variable 25, assessment of amount of use, was 
rated as light if the trough depth was up to one-third 
of the thickness of the rock; medium if it was 
between one-third and two-thirds; and heavy for 
greater than two-thirds. Pecked outline was reserved 
for those occasional metates which were essentially 
brand new and unground. 

Variable 26, grinding surface preparation, 
considered the relationship between the pecking of the 
surface (to sharpen or refurbish it) and the degree of 
grinding since the last sharpening episode. The depth 
of the pits and their frequency were observed. The 
sequence of heavy pecking/light abrasion, moderate 
pecking/moderate abrasion, light pecking/heavy 



1028 Chaco Artifacts 



abrasion, and no pecking/heavy abrasion, progressed 
from a freshly pecked relatively unground surface to 
a heavily ground surface. The final option, i.e., no 
pecking and heavy abrasion, required a judgment 
between attributing the grinding to use during its life 
as a metate or to secondary (that is, post-metate) use 
as a passive abrader. The surface normally would 
not be ground completely smooth while it was being 
used as a metate. 

Variables 27 and 28 were characteristics 
associated with a metate's use as a grinding 
implement. Undulant trough walls reflect the 
replacement of a worn or broken mano by a new, but 
shorter, mano. Battering/crushing was a variable 
used by Hooton (Appendix 9C) to record small 
concentrations of intensive hammerstone pounding in 
the trough. Striations are a series of very fine and 
frequently difficult-to-see sets of parallel lines on the 
surface of the trough — a result of grinding either with 
a rock harder than the metate or a rock of 
comparable hardness in direct contact with the metate 
(i.e., there was little meal being ground between the 
two rocks). Lateral shelf was recorded by Hooton 
(Appendix 9C); I did not record this as it is a 
concomitant of the definition of a trough metate and 
would be associated with every one. Asymmetrical 
wear to the left or right at the near-end was recorded 
for those metates which had a rectangular near-end 
(see Variable 29). This was an attempt to monitor 
the right or left handedness of the grinder. 

Variable 29 was recorded differently by the two 
analysts. Hooton (Appendix 9C) recorded latitudinal 
cross-section as trough, double-sided trough, and 
stepped trough. Since these are concomitants of the 
definition of a trough metate and/or monitored by 
other variables in the analysis, I did not record them. 
Instead, I looked at the shape of the near-end of the 
trough: rectangular, U-shaped, or irregular. 

Variable 30, plan view, was a simple overview 
of the shape of any nearly complete metates. This 
generally overlapped other variables. The options 
included rectangular, angular-irregular, rounded- 
irregular, and round. The latter was added for one 
metate from 29SJ 391, Una Vida, recovered by 
Gordon Vivian and left at Chaco Canyon. 

Variable 31, major type, was recorded as trough 
one-end-open, trough two-ends-open, two-sided 



trough (for those which were turned upside down and 
used again as a trough metate), other trough (for 
fragments which were trough but which did not have 
the diagnostic ends), slab, basin, ceremonial beautiful 
(for those with a tremendous amount of energy 
invested in the construction or having decorative 
scrolls along the border), and Utah (see above for 
discussion of the Utah problem). 

Variable 32, number of major secondary utilized 
surfaces, was the number of surfaces which were 
used for activities other than the primary job of 
grinding while the metate was still being used as a 
metate. 

Variable 33 recorded the location of the surfaces 
noted in Variable 32. Options were trough, 
adjacent/contiguous (to the trough, that is the lateral 
shelves and near-end), opposite (the bottom), and any 
of the combinations. 

Variable 34 was the type of wear recorded by 
Variable 32. Those recorded were ground/abraded 
(use as a passive abrader); pecked, gouged/ 
battered/hacked (use as a passive abrader); pigment 
(use as a paint palette); incised groove; ground/ 
gouged (similar to anvil wear, see Akins this 
volume); wide, deep, parallel grooves in the trough 
(these differ from striations in the greater size and 
depth, and general ease of visibility); passive abrader 
(see Akins, this volume); and concentration of pecks 
on the bottom (added for metates exhibiting areas of 
5-to-15 cm in diameter which were essentially solid 
peck marks). It is not completely clear that such a 
concentration was the result of secondary use. An 
argument could be made that it was the result of 
manufacturing the stone into a metate, e.g., the 
removal of a bulbous projection. 

Variable 35, number of other utilized areas, was 
also secondary wear contemporary with the use as a 
metate but less intense or extensive than that recorded 
by Variable 32. 

Variables 36 and 37 recorded the kind of wear 
noted by Variable 35. Options included pigment, 
ground/abraded, gouged/pecked, striations, 
battered/crushed, and burned. Hooton (Appendix 
9C) recorded kill hole, but I did not record it here 
because that is not the result of using the metate as a 
secondary tool. 



Metates 1029 



Variable 38, other artifact type, denoted 
artifacts that were made from a metate after it ceased 
to be used as one and usually after it was broken up. 
Artifacts recorded included palette, anvil, fire dog, 
crusher/chopper, hammerstone, active abrader, mano, 
vent shaft collar, post shim, passive abrader, saw 
edge, drill base, passive abrader with undulations in 
the trough, base for a mealing bin, mealing bin 
construction, shaped slab cover, notch, step, and 
building stone. 

A category of wear was recorded under this 
variable because there were no other columns 
available on the form. Referred to as bin wear, it 
was recorded on the near-end, far end, lateral edge, 
the center trough, and the various combinations. 

Variable 39, condition, was a description of the 
piece being analyzed. Included were whole and 
usable, analytically complete but unusable (referred 
to those broken up prehistorically but the pieces 
recovered during the excavation could be 
reassembled), and fragment. The latter condition 
yielded no whole measurement; instead, length, 
width, thickness, or combinations of these were 
recorded. 

Variables 40 and 41 were for the dimensions of 
the nonutilized surface, that is, the width of the left 
and right lateral shelves to the nearest whole 
centimenter. 

Variable 42, characteristic of the trough, could 
only be recorded for relatively complete trough 
widths in that it was an attempt to look at the cross- 
section profile of the use surface. Flat, slightly 
concave (less than 1 cm) or very concave (greater 
than 1 cm) were the options. 

Variable 43, amount of work invested in an 
artifact, indicated the effort expended in shaping the 
stone into a metate. Regularity of the stone in all 
dimensions — symmetry, flaking, grinding, pecking — 
were considered. The options were none/unmodified, 
slight, moderate, extensive, or superior. 

Variable 44, disposition, was a somewhat over- 
elaborated category which attempted to record what 
happened to the metate: killed and broken, worn out 
(with a hole in the bottom), killed, reused in 
construction, reused in construction with a hole, 
reused in construction with a kill hole, no obvious 



reason (a perfectly good, whole, and usable metate), 
broken, and has become another artifact (used for 
those pieces which were subsequently fashioned into 
another artifact as recorded in Variable 38). To be 
recorded as reused in construction, the piece had to 
be in place, or in wall-fall, at the time of excavation. 
In those cases where more than one event transpired 
in the life of the metate (usually a fragment which 
had been made into another artifact and subsequently 
reused as an architectural element), the final use was 
recorded in this space. 

Variable 45 was the field specimen (FS) number 
assigned to the artifact in the field. 

Variable 46, angle of the trough, was only 
recorded for a small portion of the sample and noted 
the angle created by the slope of the trough. It will 
not be discussed. 

The results of the analyses are presented in the 
following section. Rather than following the 
sequence of variables as listed above and on the 
recording forms, the variables are grouped into 
related categories which more closely correspond to 
the sequence of events associated with tool 
procurement and use. 

Metates— The Beginning 

The first set of variables to be discussed 
concern the rock itself. Sandstone is the single most 
ubiquitous feature of Chaco Canyon, but it is not 
univariate; harder, more tabular layers were heavily 
used during construction episodes at many Bonito 
Phase greathouses. All of the Chacoan metates were 
sandstone — there was not a single exception. The 
best determination is that they were all made from the 
locally available sandstones. Geological structure, 
color, grain size, hardness, manufacturing techniques, 
and plan view were monitored and are discussed 
below. 

Geological Structure 

When the original analyst looked at two 
properties of the rock — thickness and overall 
shape— the geological structure was divided into five 
not mutually exclusive categories. Thickness is 
directly related to the layer of sandstone being 
utilized; certain layers produce thin pieces and others 
produce thick pieces. The overall shape of the stone 



1030 Chaco Artifacts 



can be modified by the manufacturer, if desired. 
Fortunately, the variables can be combined into 
exclusive categories. 

The five values are 1) tabular rectangular and 8 
cm or less thick, 2) tabular irregularly shaped and 8 
cm or less thick, 3) massive rectangular and greater 
than 8 cm thick, 4) massive irregularly shaped and 
greater than 8 cm thick, and 5) massive greater than 
8 cm thick but too fragmentary to depict the 
regularity of the original stone (Figures 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 
and 9.10). 

Table 9. 1 indicates that the tabular, less than 8 
cm thick stone was the most frequently selected for 
metate manufacture at all sites except one (discussed 
below). Included are sites from all temporal periods 
located throughout the canyon, including the valley 
floor and the surrounding plains. No attempt was 
made to locate the exact quarry from which any given 
stone originated, but tabular stone of this type oc- 
curred on the benches of the canyon above the valley 
floor. After procurement, a stone would have to be 
taken down the cliffs to the pueblo. It was also from 



these locations that building stones for the great- 
houses were quarried. The sandstone at the base of 
the cliffs and closest to many of the sites in this sam- 
ple is the more massive variety. While it was closest 
to the location of metate use, it was the least selected. 

The massive, greater-than-8-cm-thick sandstone 
represented 31.9 percent of the sample at 29SJ 629 
and 26.8 percent at 29SJ 389. At all other sites with 
larger sample sizes, the comparable percentage is 
low. The single site with less than 50 percent thin 
metates, 29SJ 827, is one of the two temporally latest 
sites analyzed; this site has the largest number of 
trough metates with both ends open and two slab 
metates. At the other late site, 29SJ 633, 50 percent 
of the pieces were 8 cm or less; 40 percent were 
greater, and 10 percent were unknown. But many of 
the metates from this site were used in wall 
construction and had been taken from other nearby 
sites in and around Marcia's Rincon. At best, only 
a few of those analyzed from 29SJ 633 were actually 
used as metates at this location; therefore, the 
information is more relevant in the context of a site 
cluster than for this specific single location. 




Figure 9. 7. Example of geological structure: Trough metate 
fragment (FS 152-02) from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), 
Room 110. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive 
Negative No. 14056.) 



Metates 1031 




e 




Figure 9.8. Example of geological structure: A) Trough metate fragment 
(FS 434) from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Other Structure 6. 
B) Trough metate fragment (FS 900-05) from Pueblo Alto, 
Plaza Feature 1, Test Trench 1. (5 cm scales) (NPS Chaco 
Archive Negative Nos. 14057 and 14047.) 



1032 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 9.9. Example of geological structure: Trough metate fragments 
(FS 566, 463-03) from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), kiva complex 
at southwestern corner of plaza and Other Structure 9, north 
of Room 209. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative 
No. 14049.) 




Figure 9. 10. Example of geological structure: Trough metate fragment (FS 
11 33-1) from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Room 103, Test Pit 5, 
Layer 2. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 
14043.) 



Metates 1033 



Table 9. 1. Geological structure. 



Structure 





Tabular 
No. % 


Irregular 
Tabular 


Tabular Massive 
No. % 


Irregular 

Massive 


Massive 


Unknown 




Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


Total 


29SJ 423 


1 


20.0 


1 


20.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


60.0 


5 


29SJ 1659 


2 


66.7 


- 


- 


1 


33.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


29SJ 628 


19 


63.3 


4 


13.3 


4 


13.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


10.0 


30 


29SJ 299 


22 


61.1 


9 


25.0 


4 


11.1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


2.8 


36 


29SJ 724 


15 


68.2 


6 


27.3 


1 


4.5 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


22 


29SJ 1360 


7 


41.2 


8 


47.1 


1 


5.9 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


5.9 


17 


29SSJ 629 


61 


54.0 


2 


1.8 


13 


11.5 


3 


2.7 


20 


17.7 


14 


12.4 


113 


29SJ 627 


106 


51.0 


47 


22.6 


25 


12.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


30 


14.4 


208 


29SJ 389 


232 


65.9 


1 


0.3 


13 


3.7 


9 


2.6 


72 


20.5 


25 


7.1 


352 


29SJ 390 


4 


66.7 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


16.7 


1 


16.7 


- 


- 


6 


29SJ 391 


14 


87.5 


- 


- 


1 


6.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


6.3 


16 


29SJ 827 


28 


43.1 


- 


- 


2 


3.1 


5 


7.7 


29 


44.6 


1 


1.5 


65 


29SJ 633 


22 


50.0 


_z 


- 


_L 


2.3 


" 


- 


17 


38.6 


_4 


9.1 


44 


Totals 


533 




78 




66 




18 




139 




83 




917 



The second characteristic monitored in the 
classification sequence is the overall shape of the 
stone. At almost all of the sites, the regular, 
rectangular shape is overwhelmingly preferred for 
stones both less than and greater than 8 cm thick. 
For example, at 29SJ 389, 65.9 percent (n=232) 
belonged to the regular class and 0.3 percent (n=l) 
were irregular. The single exception was 29SJ 1360, 
where seven regular metates (41.2 per cent) 
contrasted with the eight irregulars (47.1 percent). 
While the numbers are much lower, the results are 
the same for those greater than 8 cm thick, except at 
the late 29SJ 827; here, there were more than twice 
as many irregular stones as regular ones (n=5 and 2, 
respectively). 

The preferred stone for metate manufacture was 
sandstone, which was 8 cm or less in thickness and 
rectangular in overall shape. It came from the 
benches above the canyon floor where it was quarried 
and carried down the cliffs to the sites in the bottom 
or up the cliffs and slopes to the sites along the rim. 
Irregularly shaped stones were used in both classes of 
thickness but this was the exception. All of the 
metates were sandstone. 



Color 

There is little overall color variation in the 
sandstone at Chaco. Localized discolorations occur 
due to impurities, fossils, or desert varnish staining. 
Usually, however, there are only two colors— tan and 
gray. As might be expected, these colors generally, 
but not exclusively, coincide with the two major cate- 
gories of sandstone. The massive cliff-forming mate- 
rial from which the stone greater than 8 cm thick was 
procured is generally tan; the thinner, 8 cm or less, 
sandstone is generally gray. At all sites and in 
almost all cases, the gray color occurred in signi- 
ficantly larger numbers and percentages than did the 
tan. The difference varied from two to almost eight 
times more gray than tan, except at 29SJ 724 where 
gray predominated by only 4.6 percent (Table 9.2). 

Other categories of color were also recognized. 
The most common (Class 3) was not different, but 
rather was both gray and tan in interbedded layers in 
a single stone. Clearly, the source for this material 
was one or more contact zones between the two. The 
highest percentage in this category was found at the 
temporally late site 29 S J 827, where 38.5 percent of 



1034 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9.2. Color. 



Color 





Tan 




Gray 




Interbedded 




Other 


Unknown 




Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


Total 


29SJ 423 


- 


- 


2 


40.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


60.0 


5 


29SJ 1659 


1 


33.3 


2 


66.7 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


29SJ 628 


6 


20.0 


12 


40.0 


3 


10.0 


- 


- 


9 


30.0 


30 


29SJ 299 


7 


19.4 


23 


63.9 


3 


8.3 


- 


- 


3 


8.3 


36 


29SJ 724 


7 


31.8 


8 


36.4 


4 


18.2 


- 


- 


3 


13.6 


22 


29SJ 1360 


5 


29.4 


10 


58.8 


- 


- 


- 


- 


2 


11.8 


17 


29SJ 629 


18 


15.9 


75 


66.4 


1 


0.9 


18" 


15.9 


1 


0.9 


113 


29SJ 627 


32 


15.4 


136 


65.4 


21 


10.1 


- 


- 


19 


9.1 


208 


29SJ 389 


36 


10.2 


280 


79.5 


18 


5.1 


7 


2.0 


11 


3.1 


352 


29SJ 390 


2 


33.3 


4 


66.7 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


6 


29SJ 391 


4 


25.0 


10 


62.5 


1 


6.3 


- 


- 


1 


6.3 


16 


29SJ 827 


9 


13.8 


30 


46.2 


25 


38.5 


- 


- 


1 


1.5 


65 


29SJ 633 


10 


22.7 


25 


56.8 


_8 


18.2 


_1 


2.3 


~ 


- 


44 


Totals 


137 




617 




84 




26 




53 




917 



Burned. 



the sample was this interbedded material. The next 
highest frequency was 18.2 percent at both 29SJ 633 
and 29SJ 724. The "other" color category 'r^luded 
a greenish piece of sandstone and burned pieces 
which ranged from pink to red. 

By itself, the color of the rock was not 
significant in the selection of the stone for 
manufacture. The gray color occurred in much 
greater percentages because the thinner sandstone was 
preferred to the more massive tan rock. 

Grain Size 

Grain size was analyzed using the criteria of the 
Wentworth Geological Scale. It was included in the 
analysis because of numerous examples in the 
archeological and ethnographic literature of metates 
and manos, which were made from rocks of differing 
grain sizes and textures. According to the 
ethnologists, this was necessary in order to grind 
grain into a very fine meal. Soldiers accompanying 
Coronado's 1540 expedition through the New Mexico 
territory commented that grinding done by the Pueblo 
Indians was superior to that of the Mexican Indians 
(Judd 1954:133). To break up the kernels, the initial 
grinding occurred on the roughest metate. The meal 
was then ground across two or three increasingly 
finer textured metates. 



Once again, the Chacoan metates did not 
encompass the reported variation from elsewhere in 
the Southwest; the majority of the metates were made 
from material with only one grain size. The 
overwhelming majority of the grain size was 
Wentworth's fine (0.125 to 0.25 mm). At eight of 
the sites, the percentage was between 91 and 100 
percent fine, and two sites, 29SJ 389 and 29SJ 1360, 
were 86 and 88 percent, respectively. Lower 
percentages can be related to sample sizes, except at 
29SJ 629; here, 59 pieces (52.2 percent) were in the 
fine range and 51 pieces (45.1 percent) were in the 
very fine range (0.0625 to 0. 125 mm). At 29SJ 389, 
an additional 10 percent was in this very fine range 
(Table 9.3). 

The grain size of a few metates fell into the 
medium category (0.25 to 0.5 mm). From one to 12 
metates — a total of 25 out of 917 pieces or 2.7 
percent analyzed at eight sites — occurred in the 
medium range. In effect, the medium-fine category 
was a residual classification for slightly different 
pieces exhibiting less uniformly sorted grains. A 
total of 20 such fragments were recorded. 

The Chacoans were using the material provided 
by their surroundings and in the case of stone for 
manos and metates, it was relatively uniform. The 
lack of coarseness in the granular structure could be 



Metates 1035 



Table 9. 3. Grain size. 











Grain Size 












1 


Fine 


Medium 


Very 


Fine 


Medium Fine 




Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


Total 


29SJ 423 


2 


40.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


60.0 


5 


29SJ 1659 


3 


100.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


29SJ 628 


29 


96.7 


1 


3.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


30 


29SJ 299 


34 


94.4 


2 


5.6 


- 


- 


- 


- 


36 


29SJ 724 


20 


90.9 


2 


9.1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


22 


29SJ 1360 


15 


88.2 


2 


11.8 


- 


- 


- 


- 


17 


29SJ 629 


59 


52.2 


3 


2.7 


51 


45.1 


- 


- 


113 


29SJ 627 


196 


94.2 


12 


5.8 


- 


- 


- 


- 


208 


29SJ 389 


302 


85.8 


2 


0.6 


36 


10.2 


12 


3.4 


352 


29SJ 390 


3 


50.0 


- 


- 


2 


33.3 


1 


16.7 


6 


29SJ 391 


15 


93.8 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


6.3 


16 


29SJ 827 


63 


96.9 


1 


1.5 


1 


1.5 


- 


- 


65 


29SJ 633 


41 


93.2 


~ 


- 


" 


- 


_3 


6.8 


44 


Totals 


782 




25 




90 




20 




917 



somewhat compensated for by keeping the grinding 
surface rough. Fine-grain surfaces clog easily, 
however, and as they clog they lose their seed or 
kernel cutting and grinding abilities. To grind an 
equal volume of meal, more maintenance would be 
required on metates of this material than would be 
required on coarser surfaces. 

Hardness 

The hardness of the stone was monitored to 
assess the rate of wear and to determine if it were 
playing a role in the selection of the stone by the 
metate manufacturer. A somewhat subjective but 
consistent scale was devised. Soft stone was easily 
gouged by a penny and could be marked with a 
fingernail. The penny would leave a fine scratch on 
a metate made from a medium-hard stone. A hard 
metate would not be marked by the penny, but some 
copper would be left on the stone. The penny would 
leave a clear trail of copper on the surface of a very 
hard metate (Table 9.4). 

As expected, soft stone was rarely used for 
metates; only three were recorded during the entire 
analysis, one for each of three sites. The medium- 
hard stone was used, but not in large numbers or 
percentages. The hard sandstone was easily the most 



frequently used for grinding, with six sites higher 
than 80 percent. The percentages of hard stones at 
29SJ 389 and 29SJ 391 appear low at 67 and 37.5 
percent respectively; however, the differences are to 
be found in the very hard category. Fully 32 percent 
(n=113) of those recovered from 29SJ 389 were very 
hard, as were 62 percent (n=10) from 29SJ 391. 
Most of these were the tabular gray material. 

Several analysts (Schelberg, Hooten, Akins, and 
Cameron) had the impression that, in general, the 
tabular gray material was harder than the tan, more 
massive stone. This is not clearly reflected in the 
results and is likely due to the relatively 
unsophisticated nature of the test. The very hard 
stone was almost always gray, but variation occurred 
in both colors. The metate manufacturers clearly 
were not selecting soft stone; the differences between 
the tan and gray colors did not appear to be 
significant to them. The very hardest is gray but 
there is no indication that metates of this material 
were being used in any manner different from the 
other grinding stones. 

Manufacturing Technique 

The amount of effort expended on the metate 
manufacture was analyzed, in part to assess changes 



1036 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9.4. Hardness. 



Hardness 





Soft 




Medium 




Hard 


Very 


Hard 


Unknown 




Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


Total 


29SJ 423 


- 


- 


1 


20.0 


1 


20.0 


- 


- 


3 


60.0 


5 


29SJ 1659 




- 


1 


33.3 


2 


66.7 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


29SJ 628 


1 


3.3 


4 


13.3 


25 


83.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


30 


29SJ 299 


1 


2.8 


- 


- 


35 


97.2 


- 


- 


- 


- 


36 


29SJ 724 


- 


- 


8 


36.4 


14 


63.6 


- 


- 


- 


- 


22 


29SJ 1360 


- 


- 


2 


11.8 


15 


88.2 


- 


- 


- 


- 


17 


29SJ 629 


- 


- 


10 


8.8 


76 


67.3 


27 


23.9 


- 


- 


113 


29SJ 627 


1 


0.5 


15 


7.2 


191 


91.8 


- 


- 


1 


0.5 


208 


29SJ 389 


- 


- 


2 


0.6 


236 


67.0 


113 


32.1 


1 


0.3 


352 


29SJ 390 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


50.0 


3 


50.0 


- 


- 


6 


29SJ 391 


- 


- 


- 


- 


6 


37.5 


10 


62.5 


- 


- 


16 


29SJ 827 


- 


- 


2 


3.1 


59 


90.8 


4 


6.2 


- 


- 


65 


29SJ 633 


~ 


- 


~ 


- 


^40 


90.9 


4 


9.1 


z 


- 


44 


Totals 


3 




45 




703 




161 




5 




917 



Table 9. 5. Manufacture by site. 



Percentages by Category 



Site No. 


Unmod. 


Chipped/ 
Flaked 


Abraded 


Pecked 


Chipped/ 

Flaked/ 

Abraded 


Chipped/ 

Flaked/ 

Pecked 


Abraded/ 
Flaked 


All 


Number 


29SJ 423 


- 


100 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


5 


29SJ 1659 


33.3 


66.7 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


29SJ 628 


63.6 


36.4 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


22 


29SJ 299 


53.1 


46.9 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


32 


29SJ 724 


86.7 


13.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


15 


29SJ 1360 


73.3 


26.7 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


15 


29SJ 629 


43.9 


19.5 


- 


25.6 


- 


11.0 


- 


- 


82 


29SJ 627 


76.2 


23.8 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


147 


29SJ 389 


13.9 


46.9 


1.5 


7.0 


9.3 


13.6 


2.7 


5.0 


258 


29SJ 390 


- 


20.0 


- 


40.0 


- 


40.0 


- 


- 


15 


29SJ 391 


36.4 


9.1 


- 


- 


18.2 


9.1 


27.3 


- 


11 


29SJ 827 


- 


57.1 


- 


1.6 


1.6 


36.5 


- 


3.2 


63 


29SJ 633 


12.8 


59.0 


- 


10.3 


7.7 


10.3 


- 


- 


39 



Metates 1037 



through time and to facilitate discussions of 
differential work investment at contemporaneous sites 
such as the small-house sites and the greathouses. 
Vivian's 1950s stabilization work in the small-house 
site of Be 51 indicated that a jewelry manufacturing 
workshop existed and that perhaps a part-time 
specialist was involved (Mathien 1984:179; Vivian 
1970). Issues of work expenditure, craft 

specialization, and differential distribution of artifacts 
are central to arguments of social complexity and 
interaction. 

Table 9.5 lists the results of the manufacturing 
in percentages; the unknown category is omitted. In 
general, manufacturing involved bashing or grinding. 
Bashing was subdivided into chipping, flaking 
(removal of smaller pieces than occurred by 
chipping), and pecking (indicated by peck marks 
similar to those made by a hammerstone when 
roughening a trough which is too smooth to grind 
effectively). Usually, the majority of the 
manufacturing effort tended to occur at both the near 
and far ends. The ends were made more even and 
rounded off by various combinations of chipping, 
flaking, pecking, and occasional abrading (Figures 
9.11 and 9.12). A common shaping technique on the 
ends of the thinnest stones was bifacial flaking; 
whereas, the thicker ones tended to be pecked more 
often than flaked. The sides or long edges were 
usually vertical with square corners and looked as if 
they had little modification. This regularity resulted 
from the even breaking of the sandstone bedding 
planes. 

While some grinding (abrading) occurred during 
the manufacturing process, it was rare and was 
recorded only at the greathouses (29SJ 389 and 29SJ 
391) and the two late small sites (29SJ 827 and 29SJ 
633). In only four cases, all at Pueblo Alto, was 
abrading the single manufacturing technique. It 
occurred in various combinations with the percussive 
techniques at the four sites. The occurrence of all 
four methods on a single metate was found only at 
two sites, one large, 29SJ 389, and the late small- 
house site of 29SJ 827. The three percussive 
methods were the most common and, considering 
sample sizes, were represented at all sites in usually 
high frequencies. 

No obvious metate manufacturing was recorded 
at 10 sites representing all temporal periods, 
locations, and sizes. The variation from 13 to 87 



percent is partly due to sample sizes. At five sites, 
more than 50 percent were unmodified. The fact that 
all of the metates at 29SJ 423 were modified is as 
likely due to the sample size as to any other factor. 
Sample size is less of a consideration at 29 S J 391 and 
especially at 29SJ 827, where no metate was 
unmodified but 63 were modified (although some are 
listed in the unknown category). 

Following the procurement of a suitable stone, 
based on considerations of geological structure and 
hardness, normally less than 40 percent were 
modified. When modification occurred, the metate 
manufacturers used percussive and abrading 
techniques to shape the stone into its final form. 
Unwanted projections were removed or reduced, 
edges and ridges were thinned, bottoms were made 
more flat for increased stability during use, and 
rough areas were smoothed. Both upper and lower 
surfaces and the edges were treated in any 
combination. No decorations of any kind were 
observed. 

Plan View 

This variable (Table 9.6) represented a 
summation of the overall shape of the stone after 
manufacture was complete, and was based on 
commonly used descriptions in the archeological 
literature. The categories are sufficiently general as 
to be useful for heuristic purposes only. The 
predominant shape was rectangular and was derived 
from the tool's function. The distinction between 
angular irregular and rounded irregular derives from 
the angularity of the corners and less-than-straight 
sides. The only unusually shaped metate was from 
Una Vida (29SJ 391). It was completely (and very 
nicely) round. It is possible that the stone had been, 
or was intended to be, used as a basal support for a 
wooden roof support timber in a Chaco kiva or even 
a great kiva. 

Work Investment by Site 

The work investment by site category (Table 
9.7) was a subjective evaluation which took into 
account the overall regularity, uniformity, and 
symmetry of the metate, in addition to the amount of 
work invested in bringing the stone to its final form. 
Differences between large and small sites were 
evaluated. At both the large and small sites, most of 
the metates fell into the slight and moderate 



1038 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 9.11. Metate fragment (FS 5347) from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Kiva 
15, Test Pit 2, Layer 7, showing rounded ends due to pecking? 
Note thinness of trough (1.5 cm) in fragment that is 3 cm thick. 
(15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 23632). 




Figure 9. 12. Metate fragment (FS 2715) from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), 
Room 142, Test Trench 1, Level 11, showing bottom that has 
been pecked. (15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 
17959). 



Table 9. 6. Plan view by site. 



Metates 1039 





Site No. 




Percentages 








Number 










Rectangular 


Angular- 
irregular 


Rounded- 
irregulai 




Round 






29SJ 423 


75.0 


25.0 


- 




- 






4 






29SJ 1659 


33.3 


33.3 


33.3 




- 






3 










29SJ 628 


63.6 


22.7 


13.6 




- 






22 










29SJ 299 


48.6 


37.1 


14.3 




- 






35 










29SJ 724 


71.4 


28.6 


- 




- 






7 










29SJ 1360 


20.0 


33.3 


46.7 




- 






15 










29SJ 629 


67.8 


32.1 


- 




- 






28 










29SJ 627 


46.0 


30.9 


23.0 




- 






139 










29SJ 389 


81.8 


16.9 


1.3 




- 






77 










29SJ 390 


100.0 


- 


- 




- 






1 










29SJ 391 


87.5 


- 


- 




12.5 






8 










29SJ 827 


60.0 


6.7 


33.3 




- 






15 










29SJ 633 


100.0 


- 


- 




- 






4 








Table 9. 7. 


Work investment by site 
























Percentage bv Site 










or 


Number 






Site No. 


Unmodified 


Slight 


Moderate 


Extensive 




Superii 




29SJ 629 


20.8 


35.4 


37.5 




8.6 






- 




48 






29SJ 389 


13.0 


45.0 


34.2 




7.4 






0.4 




231 






29SJ 390 


- 


25.0 


75.0 




- 






- 




4 






29SJ 391 


- 


33.3 


55.6 




11.1 






- 




9 






29SJ 827 


- 


77.0 


22.9 




- 






- 




61 






29SJ 633 


11.4 


80.0 


8.6 




- 






- 




35 






Table 9.8. Major metate type by site. 




























Metate 


Type 


















OpenO 


ne End Open T 
% No. 


Two Trough 
wo Ends Surface 


Unknown 
Trough 




Slab 




Unknown 




Site No. No. 


% No. % 


No. 


% 


No. 




% 


No. 


% 


Total 


29SJ 423 3 


60.0 


- 


1 20.0 


1 


20.0 




- 




- 


- 


- 


5 


29SJ 1659 3 


100.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 




- 




- 


- 


- 


3 


29SJ 628 19 


63.3 


- 


- 


9 


30.0 




- 




- 


2 


6.6 


30 


29SJ 299 30 


83.3 


- 


1 2.8 


5 


13.9 




- 




- 


- 


- 


36 


29SJ 724 12 


54.5 1 


4.5 


- 


6 


27.3 




- 




- 


3 


13.6 


22 


29SJ 1360 14 


82.4 2 


11.8 


- 


1 


5.9 




- 




- 


- 


- 


17 


29SJ 629 52 


46.0 2 


1.8 


- 


52 


46.0 




1 




0.9 


6 


5.3 


113 


29SJ 627 145 


69.7 2 


1.0 


- 


43 


20.7 




- 




- 


18 


8.7 


208 


29SJ 389 135 


38.4 2 


0.6 


- 


215 


61.1 




- 




- 


- 


- 


352 


29SJ 390 1 


16.7 1 


16.7 


- 


4 


66.7 




- 




- 


- 


- 


6 


29SJ 391 5 


31.3 


- 


- 


11 


68.8 




- 




- 


- 


- 


16 


29SJ 827 17 


26.2 11 


16.9 


- 


33 


50.8 




2 




3.1 


2 


3.1 


65 


29SJ 633 __6 


13.6 _; 


- 


_z 


38 


86.4 




~ 




- 


_z 


- 


44 


Totals 442 


21 




2 


418 






3 






31 




917 



1040 Chaco Artifacts 



categories. A total of 21 were given an extensive 
rating: three at the small-house site of 29SJ 629; 17 
at Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), and one at Una Vida 
(29SJ 391). Given the differing sample sizes, the 
percentages are not too different and the differences 
are not significant. A single metate was listed as 
superior. This was a portion of a thin, very hard, 
gray tabular metate with very wide shelves (19 cm), 
and extensive modification, including flaking of the 
edges followed by abrasion to smooth them. No 
decorations of any type were observed on any of the 
metates. 

Ma jor Type 

The generalizations in the archeological 
literature and text books equated the occurrence of 
slab metates with the Pueblo III period. It was a 
surprise to leam that slab metates were nearly absent 
from Chaco Canyon. This fact includes not only the 
Chaco Project but every excavation ever documented 
in the canyon. A total of three definite slab metates 
were included in this analysis. One was recovered by 
the Chaco Project at 29SJ 629 and the other two were 
from 29SJ 827. This site had been excavated a 
decade or more prior to the Chaco Project, and the 
ground stone was left at the location. These three 
represent 0.0033 percent of the total metates analyzed 
(Table 9.8). 

Two questionable metates occurred at the late 
site of 29SJ 633. Most of the metates at this site 
were the result of prehistoric gathering and 
subsequent breaking for use in wall construction. 
One of the two looked similar to an incomplete 
trough from a trough metate which had been broken 
away from the surrounding shelves. The other may 
have been a slab metate but it was too incomplete to 
be certain. 

Based on the available literature for Chaco 
Canyon, approximately 34 slab metates have been 
recovered during all of the excavations. If only 
1,200 trough metates have been recovered, the slab 
metates represent 0.03 percent. (See Table 9.9 for a 
distribution of metate types by site for sites in Chaco 
Canyon and other Southwestern locations.) This 
incomplete total is essentially none when compared to 
over 1,200 trough metates recovered during the same 
excavations. 



All of the remaining metates from the 13 sites 
in this analysis were trough metates. The vast 
majority were open-at-one-end. Trough metates 
open-at-both-ends were somewhat more common than 
the slab metates but were also underrepresented, 
according to the archeological literature. Those with 
both ends open were recovered from seven sites 
(including 29SJ 827). When those with small sample 
sizes are excluded, the percentages are generally low. 
The 12.5 percent at 29SJ 1360 is relatively high for 
a moderate sample size at an earlier site. Sites with 
the largest samples, 29SJ 629 and 29SJ 389, had 3.6 
and 1.5 percent, respectively. The highest 
percentage occurred at 29SJ 827. This fact, 
combined with the slab metates and several open-at- 
one-end trough metates reminiscent of some from 
Pueblo Alto, make the metate assemblage at this site 
very interesting, especially for a small late site. 

Trough metates, open-at-one-end, were the 
dominant grinding tool at all of the sites in all of the 
temporal periods in Chaco Canyon. This was also 
the conclusion of Judd (1954) at Pueblo Bonito and 
Judd (1959) at Pueblo del Arroyo. This fact was not 
influenced by the presence or absence of bins because 
trough metates were used in bins at many sites within 
the canyon. Apparently, they were simply set into 
some bins in some places and permanently mortared 
into place in others. It would be interesting to 
compare sizes and weights to ascertain if these 
variables determined the need to set a metate in 
mortar. But such tests cannot take place unless some 
future excavations discover several situations of 
metates in primary contexts. 

The two, two-surface metates (Table 9.8) were 
unusual. One was recovered from each of two sites, 
29SJ 423 and 29SJ 299. Both were temporally 
earlier sites. Each metate had an open-at-one-end 
trough, with the same style trough on the upper and 
lower surfaces of the stones. Each stone had two 
troughs. No obvious reason which would lead to the 
use of the bottom to create a new metate could be 
determined. 

Summary 

Following quarry selection, a roughed-out hard 
piece of sandstone of the approximate final dimension 
was acquired. Due to the uniformity of the grain 



Table 9.9. Metate distribution by type (all numbers approximate). 



Metates 1041 



Metate Type 



Site Name/No. 



Open at 
One End 



Open at 
Two Ends 



Slab 



Basin Unknown 



Shabik'eshchee Village (29SJ 1659) 

Half House (29SJ 1657) 

Three C (29SJ 625) 

Leyit Kin (29SJ 750) 

Be 50 (29SJ 394) 

Be 51 (29SJ395) 

Be 53 (29SJ 396) 

Be 54 (29SJ 1922) 

Be 56 (29SJ 753) 

Be 58 (29SJ 398) 

Be 59 (29SJ 399) 

Be 192 (29SJ 1914) 

Be 236 (29SJ 589) 

Kin Kletso (29SJ 393) 

Pueblo del Arroyo (29SJ 1947) 

Pueblo Bonito (29SJ 387) 

29SJ 633 

Salmon Ruin: Primary 

Secondary 
Secondary Mix 

Guadalupe Ruin 

Village of the Great Kivas 

Escalante 

Dominguez 

Mesa Verde No. 499 

Mesa Verde Big Juniper House 

Mesa Verde No. ? 
Mesa Verde Long House 
Mesa Verde: Badger House 



All' 

4 

Air 

44 

85 

14 

All(> 13) 

8 

1 

3 

1 + 

2 

4 

24 

44 

208 

135 

32 

10 

13 

76% 

100% (early) 

1 

2 
3 

1 

6 

200 



2 + 
24 fragments 



7+ 



16 
8 



2 

10 

37 

42 

14% 

100% (late) 

14 

4 

15 

8 + 

104 
90 
13 



' Numbers not reported. 



size, selection was probably guided more by the 
degree of hardness because no stone was appreciably 
or inherently rougher than any other. If the roughed- 
out blank met with approval, no additional 
modification was required. If not, a variety of 
percussive and grinding techniques were employed to 
complete the manufacture. The upper surface was 
then roughened by pounding so that the grain would 
be ground rather than simply scattered. The initial 
pounding was in the general shape of a trough. 



To finally prepare a metate for grinding, 
hammerstones were used to pound the general outline 
of the trough into the upper surface. The result was 
a concentration of peck marks whose function it was 
to create a rough surface which would catch and cut 
the kernels and seeds. A smooth surface will not 
function for grinding as the seeds will be pushed off 
the far end. The actual trough, at best a by-product 
of the production of meal, was created as the mano 
ground away at the metate. The goal was to make 



1042 Chaco Artifacts 



dinner, not necessarily to make a trough. On slab 
metates, the entire surface, rather than a portion, was 
worn away. 

One unused trough metate was recovered during 
the Chaco Project. A blank with an unground but 
roughed-out-by-hammerstone-pounding trough oc- 
curred at 29SJ 389. It was prepared but no evidence 
of any grinding could be seen. Once the metate is 
pressed into service, the grinding surface treatment is 
directly related to the use-portion of the artifact' s 
history and is no longer in the manufacturing 
component. Grinding surface preparation is dis- 
cussed in the following section. 

Trough metates with one-end-open were 
essentially the only style used in Chaco Canyon. 
With the exception of a site excavated in the 1930s 
(Be 26; 29SJ 750), and one in the 1950s (Be 236; 
29SJ 589), no other site in the canyon had more than 
two slab metates; less than 35 have ever been 
recovered. The open-at-two-end style was slightly 
more common than slab metates but still insignificant 
when compared to those with only one-open-end. 

Metates— The Use 

Once the procurement and manufacturing were 
completed and the metate was situated at its use 
locus, its longevity was determined by its physical 
makeup, the amount of use, and changing societal 
conditions and organizational requirements. As the 
use progressed, the trough took on a clear definition 
and ultimately became the dominant feature of the 
tool, until in some Southwestern areas, it disappeared 
completely. Initially, the trough extended only part 
way through the upper surface and a shelf remained 
at the end closest to the miller. It has been suggested 
that this shelf provided a convenient resting place for 
a mano when not in use. Undoubtedly, a number of 
factors were involved. Until metates were 
permanently fixed into bins, they were portable, at 
least to the extent of being leaned up against a wall 
when not needed. Then the shelf was inaccessible to 
the manos, and the latter would also be placed on the 
floor out of the way. In many Southwestern areas, 
metates changed through time. The near shelf was 
cut through by the trough and both ends were 
opened; this form was subsequently replaced by a 
completely flat slab metate lacking any trough. As 
noted above, trough metates with only one-end-open 
were the clearly dominant type in Chaco Canyon. 



Several attributes associated with grinding were 
monitored primarily for descriptive purposes and, it 
was assumed, for insight into their use-life and 
volume of meal which could be produced. Given the 
arguments in the literature concerning the variously 
postulated social organization and status differences 
between and among the greathouse and small-house 
sites, it was anticipated that interesting differences 
would be found. While there were differences in 
dimensions, they were relatively slight and not what 
one might expect if simply based on untested 
assertions of major status differentiation between 
residents of different sites. 

Dimensions 

It cannot be said which, if any, dimension was 
the limiting factor from a Chacoan's perspective; in 
the end, a combination of trade-offs between length, 
width, and weight were involved. Weight was not 
the only consideration. Judd (1954:137) reported five 
trough metates from Room 251 in Pueblo Bonito, 
each weighing at least 150 pounds (68 kg) and noted 
that Pepper recovered two which were even larger. 
I weighed two trough metates left at the Mockingbird 
Canyon dump in Chaco Canyon that were 105 and 
100 pounds (48 and 45 kg, respectively). The former 
one was from Una Vida. These large ones were even 
heavier prior to grinding and required several people 
to transport. 

The length of a metate's trough is a function of 
the effective grinding stroke, which is a function of 
the volume of meal and the size of the miller's arms 
and legs. The width of a metate's trough is a 
function of the mano, which was a function of such 
factors as the volume of meal to be ground, surface 
area, weight, and hand size. The overall length and 
width of the stone could be a function of available 
space, aesthetic preferences, the need for additional 
working surfaces (the lateral and near-end shelves), 
and many other factors. 

With respect to the overall dimensions of the 
stone (i.e., not the trough), the averages of the 
complete dimensions of the overall length, width, 
thickness, weight, and surface area of the stone itself 
are recorded in Table 9. 10. This table also includes 
the depth of the trough. The most striking statistic is 
the small number of metates which were complete in 
the five measurements — only 7.5 percent or 69 of the 
total 917 analyzed items (whole or fragments). This 



Metates 1043 



Table 9. 10. Dimensions for metates. 



Dimensions 



* Complete dimensions only. 



Table 9.1 1. Dimensions for the trough and the near-end shelf 





Weight 


Length 
No. cm 


Width 


Thickness 
No. cm 


Surface Area 
No. cm 2 


Def 
Trc 

No. 


ith of 
■ugh 


Site No. 


No. 


s 


No. 


cm 


cm 


29SJ 423 


3 


10,000 


3 


57.3 


3 


38.3 


3 


5.6 


3 


2,213.7 


3 


5.0 


29SJ 1659 


1 


17,010 


1 


56.0 


1 


40.0 


1 


7.0 


1 


2,240.0 


1 


4.0 


29SJ 628 


3 


23,546 


3 


52.3 


3 


28.0 


3 


9.7 


3 


1,539.3 


3 


2.33 


29SJ 299 


10 


24,272 


10 


57.7 


10 


43.7 


10 


6.6 


10 


2,544.2 


10 


4.6 


29SJ 724 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 1360 


9 


21,028 


9 


51.8 


9 


35.8 


9 


12.3 


9 


1,857.3 


9 


7.0 


29SJ 629 


8 


19,544 


10 


47.3 


11 


33.4 


97 


7.1 


8 


1,624.1 


8 


4.25 


29SJ 627 


7 


20,121 


7 


52.0 


7 


35.1 


7 


10.9 


7 


1,886.7 


7 


5.85 


29SJ 389 


14 


21,659 


25 


50.7 


35 


34.7 


320 


6.6 


14 


1,961.6 


14 


6.4 


29SJ 390 


- 


- 


1 


57.0 


10 


35.5 


5 


6.9 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 391 


2 


23,750 


2 


53.0 


2 


42.0 


16 


5.8 


2 


2,214.0 


2 


5.0 


29SJ 827 


11 


25,136 


23 


46.4 


19 


32.6 


62 


9.1 


11 


1,702.7 


11 


3.55 


29SJ 633 


1 


12,500 


3 


46.7 


2 


26.2 


36 


8.0 


1 


1,325.0 


1 


5.0 


All 


69 


24.837 


69 


51.9 


69 


36.5 


69 


10.0 


69 




69 


5.1 



Dimensions 





Length 


Width 


Area 


Average 
Near-End Shel 

No. 


f Width 


Site No. 


No. 


cm 


No. 


cm 


No. 


cm 2 


cm 


29SJ 423 


3 


36.0 


3 


19.3 


3 


697.0 


1 


12.0 


29SJ 1659 


1 


36.0 


1 


19.0 


1 


684.0 


1 


18.0 


29SJ 628 


3 


37.7 


3 


19.0 


3 


740.0 


5 


13.4 


29SJ 299 


10 


40.2 


10 


21.2 


10 


857.4 


16 


15.3 


29SJ 724 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


5 


8.4 


29SJ 1360 


9 


39.4 


9 


20.3 


9 


801.0 


6 


13.3 


29SJ 629 


10 


40.5 


11 


18.4 


8 


786.0 


17 


11.3 


29SJ 627 


7 


41.4 


7 


21.4 


7 


896.8 


18 


11.4 


29SJ 389 


19 


45.0 


35 


18.2 


14 


818.9 


68 


10.2 


29SJ 390 


1 


50.0 


2 


22.0 


- 


- 


1 


9.0 


29SJ 391 


2 


36.0 


2 


18.5 


2 


664.0 


5 


6.8 


29SJ 827 


23 


44.9 


19 


19.3 


11 


820.4 


10 


6.1 


29SJ 633 


3 


41.0 


5 


17.2 


1 


782.0 


6 


4.8 



1044 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9. 12. Near-end shelf width. 



Near-End Shelf Width 







<10cm 




> 10 cm 




Unknown 


< 1 


cm 




Site No. 


No. 


% of 
Total 


Range 


No. 


% of 
Total 


Range 


No. 


% of 
Total 


No. 


% of 
Total 


Total 


29SJ 423 


- 


- 


- 


2 


33.3 


12, 16 


4 


66.7 


- 


- 


6 


29SJ 1659 


- 


- 


- 


1 


33.3 


18 


2 


66.7 


- 


- 


3 


29SJ 628 


1 


3.4 


7 


4 


13.8 


13-18 


23 


79.3 


1 


3.4 


29 


29SJ 299 


4 


11.1 


1-8 


14 


38.9 


12-24 


18 


50.0 


- 


- 


36 


29SJ 724 


4 


18.2 


6-9 


1 


4.5 


12 


17 


77.3 


- 


- 


22 


29SJ 1360 


3 


17.6 


1 


6 


35.3 


10-16 


6 


35.3 


2 


11.8 


17 


29SJ 629 


7 


6.2 


1-9 


12 


10.6 


10-18 


89 


78.8 


5 


4.4 


113 


29SJ 627 


17 


8.2 


1-9 


12 


5.8 


10-18 


177 


85.1 


2 


1.0 


208 


29SJ 389 


41 


11.6 


1-8 


39 


11.1 


10-20 


272 


77.3 


2 


0.6 


352 


29SJ 390 


1 


16.7 


9 


- 


- 


- 


4 


66.7 


1 


16.7 


6 


29SJ 391 


3 


18.8 


2-3 


2 


12.5 


12, 14 


11 


68.8 


- 


- 


16 


29SJ 827 


13 


19.1 


1-8 


2 


2.9 


16, 18 


39 


57.4 


14" 


20.6 


68 


29SJ 633 


6 


13.6 


3-6 


" 


- 


- 


38 


86.4 


~ 


- 


44 


Totals 


100 






95 






700 




27 




920/922 


* 1 1 open, 2 unknown 

1 other 

2 slab 























Table 9. 13. Right and left lateral shelf width. 



Shelf Width 







<10cm 




> 


10 cm 




Unknown 




Site No. 


No. 


% of 
Total 


Range 


No. 


% of 
Total 


Range 


No. 


% of 
Total 


29SJ 629 


10 


9.0 


1-9 


48 


43.6 


10-19 


52 


47.3 


29SJ 389 


185 


52.7 


2-9 


105 


29.9 


10-20 


61 


17.4 


29SJ 390 


4 


66.6 


1-9 


2 


33.3 


11-13 


- 


- 


29SJ 391 


7 


43.8 


2-9 


7 


43.8 


10-18 


2 


12.5 


29SJ 633 


32 


76.2 


2-9 


2 


4.8 


10-10 


8 


19.0 


29SJ 827 


55 


87.3 


1-9 


5 


7.9 


10-15 


3 


4.8 



indicates the extent to which the sample was broken 
up. The small sample sizes and their variability 
between sites preclude any definitive statements; 
however, the larger stones (overall area) tend to be 
earlier and the smaller occur later in time. In 
general, there is a decrease in the size of the stone 
from Basketmaker to Pueblo IV-V. One by-product 
of the smaller slab metates is that they could be easily 
transported by a single individual. 

With the exception of the consistent reporting of 
the metates from 29SJ 827, few of the tables in this 
report include metates from previously excavated 
sites; therefore, the weight category in Table 9.10 is 



deceptive because, as noted above, the heaviest 
metates recovered were those from Pueblo Bonito by 
Pepper and Judd and from Una Vida by Vivian. The 
heavier stones would tend to move around less during 
use and the miller could concentrate on grinding and 
not on adjusting the metate. Based on unnumbered 
photographs in the Chaco archives, it appears that, in 
addition to metates used on a floor, even some of the 
trough metates in bins were not fixed in place by 
adobe (e.g., the four in a set of contiguous bins at 
Chetro Ketl). 

With respect to the overall dimensions of the 
utilized surface (that is, the trough), the averages of 



Metates 1045 



the complete dimensions for length, width, area, and 
depth are presented in Table 9.11. While the metates 
at the later sites tend to have larger surface areas, 
there are individual differences compounded by 
sample size variability, and no clear-cut trend is 
evident. As will be discussed later, the main 
grinding area difference is that the surface area of the 
trough metates is larger than the area for the few slab 
metates recovered in Chaco Canyon. 

The near-end shelf, and the right- and left- 
lateral shelves were important in the daily life of the 
Chacoans because they provided additional use 
surfaces upon which other tasks — secondary to 
grinding quantities of meal but contemporaneous with 
the primary function of a metate— could be 
accomplished. As discussed below, they were 
especially convenient as a base for striking, cutting, 
and for other uses. Tables 9.12 and 9.13 provide 
summary measurements and ranges differentiated 
above and below 10 cm for the shelves surrounding 
the trough. Overall, the variation for the near-end 
shelf is from less than one cm long to 24 cm. 
Generally, there is a decrease in the percentage of 
metates with near-end shelves greater than 10 cm as 
one moves from earlier to later sites; this corresponds 
to the decrease in overall stone size through time. 
The largest (24 cm in length) occurred at 29SJ 299, 
and the second largest, 20 cm, occurred at 29SJ 389. 
Table 9.11 includes the average near-end shelf width 
by site (those less than 1 cm wide are not included in 
Table 9.11 due to computer formatting). 

The largest lateral shelf, 20 cm, occurred at 
29 S J 389, but the second largest, 19 cm, was from 
29SJ 629. Again, there is no clear trend in increases 
or decreases through time. Given the sample size 
variation, 29SJ 629 had the greatest percentage of 
metates with shelves greater than 10 cm. These 
measurements were not taken at the sites analyzed 
earlier in the project. The metates with shelves 
greater than 15 cm were quite impressive, especially 
as they tended to be only 5-to-7-cm-thick; it is 
unfortunate that none were complete and unbroken. 



Grinding Surface Preparation 

As noted above, a single metate with a prepared 
but unused surface was found at 29SJ 389. The 
outline of the trough was roughed-in but no grinding 



had occurred. Once grinding was initiated, any 
metate's surface was gradually worn away. The pits 
created by pounding with hammerstones and/or the 
ends of manos decrease in depth and cease to catch 
the grain fragments. Grinding becomes progressively 
more difficult; for a while, additional force applied to 
the mano or a longer grinding session would still 
reduce the meal into a finer consistency. If the 
surface is not renewed or roughed up by additional 
pounding, grinding becomes impossible. As noted in 
the introduction, Bartlett (1933:4) was told that 
metates were sharpened once every five days at Hopi. 

Prior to the beginning of the analysis, it was 
assumed that metates would be used until they were 
worn out or became so thin that they cracked when 
pounding was used to renew the grinding surface. If 
this were the case, most of those recovered would 
have a hole in the trough, or a generally smooth 
trough with some indication of renewal pounding 
having occurred. It was also anticipated that more 
complete specimens would be recovered than actually 
were. Frequently, the assumption was not verified 
because few worn-out metates were found. This is in 
contrast to those from Pueblo Bonito where 
apparently worn-out metates were common (Judd 
1954). 

Four combinations of pounding and grinding 
were recorded (Table 9.14); they reflected the 
continuous range from initial surface preparation to 
those which were mostly ground and in need of 
renewal. The two most frequently observed 
categories were moderate pecking and moderate 
abrasion (Figure 9.13), and light pecking and 
moderate abrasion, indicating that the surface had 
been both renewed and ground. In either case, 
additional grinding could occur; although some of 
those in the latter class were in need of pounding. 
The third most commonly recorded category 
represented the initial pounding to renew the surface 
accompanied by at least some grinding. Three sites, 
all with very small sample sizes, did not have any 
metates meeting the latter combination. 

Only 13 representatives of the fourth class were 
encountered. Twelve metates at 29SJ 389 and one at 
29SJ 633 were ground completely smooth; there were 
no pits. As noted, it would be difficult to grind meal 
under such circumstances. It is possible that this 
wear pattern resulted from a secondary use of the 



1046 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9. 14. Grinding surface preparation. 













Type of Grinding 














Heavy Pecking, 
Light Abrading 


Moderate Pecking, 
Moderate Abrading 


Light Pecking, 

Heavy Abrading 


No Pecking, 

Heavy Abrading 


Unknown 




Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


Total 


29SJ 423 


- 


- 


1 


20.0 


1 


20.0 


- 


- 


3 


60.0 


5 


29SJ 1659 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


33.3 


- 


- 


2 


66.7 


3 


29SJ 628 


3 


10.0 


8 


26.7 


17 


56.7 


- 


- 


2 


6.6 


30 


29SJ 299 


1 


2.8 


17 


47.2 


14 


38.9 


- 


- 


4 


11.1 


36 


29SJ 724 


2 


9.1 


11 


50.0 


7 


31.8 


- 


- 


2 


9.1 


22 


29SJ 1360 


2 


11.8 


6 


35.3 


9 


52.9 


- 


- 


- 


- 


17 


29SJ 629 


26 


23.0 


46 


40.7 


22 


19.5 


- 


- 


19 


16.8 


113 


29SJ 627 


9 


4.3 


93 


44.7 


71 


34.1 


- 


- 


35 


16.8 


208 


29SJ 389 


53 


15.1 


158 


44.9 


60 


17.0 


12 


3.4 


69 


19.6 


352 


29SJ 390 


- 


- 


5 


83.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


16.7 


6 


29SJ 391 


5 


31.3 


6 


37.5 


2 


12.5 


- 


- 


3 


18.8 


16 


29SJ 827 


17 


26.2 


28 


43.1 


17 


26.2 


1 


1.5 


2 


3.1 


65 


29SJ 633 


9 


20.5 


21 


47.7 


8 


18.2 


~ 


- 


6 


13.6 


44 


Totals 


127 




400 




229 




13 




148 




917 




Figure 9. 13. Examples of pecking and abrading: A) Left far end ofmetate (FS 
6329) from Room 147 at Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389). B) Left far end 
ofmetate (FS 3118) from Room 4 of the East Ruin of the Pueblo 
Alto Complex. Note the same width of the lateral shelves. (15 
cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 23618). 



Metates 1047 



Table 9. 1 5. Characteristics due to milling. 



Characteristics 





Undulant 
Trough 

No. % 


Battering 
No. % 


Asym. 
No. 


Left 

% 


Asym. 
No. 


Right 

% 


Striations 


Lateral 
No. 


Shelf 

% 




Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


29SJ 423 


1 


50.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


50.0 


- 


- 


2 


29SJ 1659 


1 


33.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


2 


66.7 


2 


66.7 


3 


29SJ 628 


8 


30.8 


6 


23.1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


20 


76.9 


7 


26.9 


26 


29SJ 299 


9 


33.3 


4 


14.8 


- 


- 


- 


- 


19 


70.4 


18 


66.7 


27 


29SJ 724 


4 


30.8 


4 


30.8 


- 


- 


- 


- 


10 


76.9 


4 


30.8 


13 


29SJ 1360 


7 


50.0 


2 


14.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


13 


92.8 


1 


7.1 


14 


29SJ 629 


19 


20.9 


- 


- 


2 


2.2 


3 


3.3 


82 


90.1 


- 


- 


91 


29SJ 627 


69 


49.6 


3 


2.2 


- 


- 


- 


- 


127 


91.4 


24 


17.3 


139 


29SJ 389 


93 


43.0 


2 


0.9 


1 


0.5 


6 


2.8 


171 


79.2 


- 


- 


216 


29SJ 390 


1 


25.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


25.0 


3 


75.0 


- 


- 


4 


29SJ 391 


3 


50.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


16.7 


5 


83.3 


- 


- 


6 


29SJ 827 


21 


50.0 


- 


- 


1 


2.4 


- 


- 


34 


80.9 


- 


- 


42 


29SJ 633 


13 


37.1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29 


82.8 


- 


- 


35 



metates or another use after they ceased to function 
primarily as metates. If either alternative were 
correct, this wear should have been included in the 
analysis of the secondary metate use or even post- 
metate recycling into other tools. This discussion is 
in the following section. 

Grinding surface renewal was a fact of life for 
a metate-using miller. It obviously occurred at all 
sites because metates were recovered in a continuous 
range from initial preparation to essentially worn-out. 
Without renewal, grinding became impossible. This 
also means that hammerstones were an indispensable 
component of the miller's tool kit. The ends of 
manos were occasionally used to sharpen a trough's 
surface but were not relied on as it would decrease 
the mano's use-life. Lange (1959:116), citing an 
1880 notation of Bandelier, mentioned the use of 
hammerstones for sharpening manos and metates. 
Bandelier commented on the ringing pounding of the 
Hopi grinders as they prepared for grinding by 
renewing the surfaces. Initially, I tabulated 
hammerstones and their distribution; however, given 
the uneven reporting in the literature and the 
profound lack of material in primary context, I 
ceased as there were other more plausible windmills 
on the horizon. 

Characteristics Associated with Milling 

Table 9.15 lists several traits that generally 
result from using the metate for grinding. Striations 



were ubiquitous — these fine parallel lines on the 
surface of metates, manos, and other ground stone 
result when the grains of sand in the sandstone cut 
the surfaces during the reciprocal grinding motion. 
The mano is locked into the same place by the walls 
of the trough so any harder grains tend to travel the 
same path and cut into the opposite surface until they 
are dulled or worn away. Most striations are visible 
on a surface which has been ground for a period of 
time in such a way that the pits begin to disappear. 
Striations are generally obliterated when the surface 
is renewed by pounding. 

The variable entitled "lateral shelf" is actually 
a concomitant of the definition of a trough metate. 
Since this is recorded elsewhere, it was deemed 
redundant and not recorded for the sites analyzed 
later in time. 

"Battering" was recorded if a concentration of 
hammerstone pits occurred in a small area. 
Unfortunately, the factors surrounding this variable 
are similar to those discussed above concerning a 
trough that has been ground completely smooth. 
There are multiple possibilities contemporaneous with 
grinding or occurring after the metate was recycled 
into other tools or uses. Battering may be associated 
with the milling; for example, those occasions when 
one area of the trough was pounded more than the 
remainder, or it could be the result of secondary 
contemporaneous use, or even post-metate use. 
Battered areas were found not only within the trough 



1048 Chaco Artifacts 



but could also occur anywhere else. In such a 
situation, battering could be associated with either the 
initial manufacture of the metate or with subsequent 
use. 

Asymmetrical wear to the left or right was 
recorded only at the sites analyzed later in the Chaco 
Project. It refers to the relationship between the 
near-end of the trough and the near edge of the stone 
itself. In the majority of cases, the shape of the near- 
end of the trough is rectangular (see below). In most 
cases the longest edge of this rectangle, which is 
equivalent to the width of the trough, is parallel to 
the edge of the stone closest to the miller. 
Occasionally, however, it was not parallel and was in 
fact shifted to either the right or the left. In other 
words, the right (or left) corner of the end of the 
trough was closer to the end of the metate than was 
the other corner. 

Presumably, this asymmetrical wear resulted 
from unequal pressure being put on the mano by the 
miller during the downward grinding stroke, that is, 
going away from the person. In such a situation, the 
person is putting greater pressure on the hand that the 
person uses the most. Because most people are right- 
handed, the majority of the asymmetrical wear should 
be to the right, which was clearly the case. 
Asymmetry to the right was almost three times as 
likely to occur (11 events to the right and four to the 
left). 

Undulating trough walls (Figures 9.14, 9.15, 
and 9. 16) were recorded at every site. They are the 
result of the miller using a new mano that is shorter 
than the existing distance between the two walls of 
the trough. Since Chacoan manos are almost always 
thinner than the metates and were made from the 
same stone, the manos wore out faster. The manos 
were wearing out in two directions — from the bottom 
up and in towards the middle from both sides. As 
the grinding progressively increased the depth of the 
trough, the sides of the mano were worn down and 
the width of the trough continuously decreased. 

If the miller selected a new mano that was 
roughly as long as the one being replaced, the new 
one would take up where the old one stopped, and 
the walls of the trough would slope in a continuous 
arc to the bottom of the trough. On the other hand, 
if the new mano were shorter than the old one, a 
bulge would occur in the walls of the trough because 



less material had been worn away by the shorter 
mano. Each time this occurred, another bulge, or 
undulation, resulted. Because some of the 
replacement manos were almost the same length, 
some of the bulges were slight. When the mano was 
clearly shorter, however, the bulge was sharp, and 
occasionally, one or more vertical walls, rather than 
a curve, were present. 

Metates with undulating walls represent a 
relatively high percentage. While the variation was 
from 21 to 50 percent, undulations were recorded at 
all sites. 

Characteristics of the Trough 

As variation existed in the walls of the trough, 
variability was also recorded across the trough's 
grinding surface. The shape of the grinding surface 
was recorded at the six sites studied later in the 
project (Table 9.16). Additional variables were 
considered during the first session of analysis but 
were determined to be nonproductive due to 
redundancy among other categories. The shape was 
recorded as flat, slightly concave, or very concave. 
If the center of the grinding surface was 1 cm or less 
deeper than the edges, it was recorded as slightly 
concave. Greater than 1 cm deep was recorded as 
very concave. The point of measurement was at the 
juncture of the bottom with the beginning of the 
curve leading to the trough's wall, and not at the top 
of the curve on the wall. 

Those with either a flat or very concave 
grinding surface were rare; six of the former 
occurred at four sites and eight of the latter were 
found at three sites. Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389) yielded 
six of the eight metates with very concave grinding 
surfaces. The slightly concave surface was the most 
common. The high percentage in the unknown 
category reflects the lack of sufficiently complete 
pieces necessary to monitor the variable. The 
concave shape results from the slight differential wear 
on the mano. It is likely that the mano would have 
to be a harder material to wear down a consistently 
flat grinding surface, but the Chacoan manos and 
metates were from the same sandstone. 

Shape of the Trough's Near-End 

The shape of the trough's near-end was also 
recorded at the final six sites analyzed (Table 9.17). 



Metates 1049 




Figure 9. 14. Example of an undulating trough wall: Trough metate (FS 433- 
09) from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Other Structure 6. (5 cm 
scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 14225). 




Figure 9. 15. Example of undulating trough walls: Trough metate fragment (FS 
4232) from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), wall clearing of Plaza 
Feature 4. (15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative 
No. 17955). 



1050 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 9. 1 6. Example of an undulating trough wall: Trough metate 
fragments from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389). Right: FS 6766 from 
Room 143, Layer 1. Left: FS 5076 from Plaza Grid 117, 
Layer 1. (15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 
23614). 



Table 9. 16. Characteristics of the trough. 



Characteristics of the Trough 





Flat Bottom 


Slightly 


Concave 


Very 


Concave 


Unknown 




Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


Total 


29SJ 629 


1 


0.9 


14 


12.4 


- 


- 


98 


86.7 


113 


29SJ 389 


1 


0.3 


28 


8.0 


6 


1.7 


317 


90.1 


352 


29SJ 390 


- 


- 


2 


33.3 


- 


- 


4 


66.7 


6 


29SJ 391 


- 


- 


1 


6.3 


1 


6.3 


14 


87.5 


16 


29SJ 827 


2 


3.1 


20 


30.8 


- 


- 


43 


66.2 


65 


29SJ 633 


2 


4.5 


_2 


4.5 


_! 


2.3 


39 


88.6 


44 


Totals 


6 




67 




8 




515 




596 



Metates 1051 



Table 9. 1 7. Shape of the near 


-end of the 






trough. 


Percentages 






Site No. 


Rectangular 


U-Shaped 


Irregular 


No. 


29SJ 629 


14.2 


85.7 


- 


21 


29SJ 389 


14.1 


84.6 


1.3 


78 


29SJ 390 


- 


100.0 


- 


1 


29SJ 391 


25.0 


75.0 


- 


4 


29SJ 827 


35.3 


52.9 


11.8 


17 


29SJ 633 


66.7 


33.3 


- 


3 



Three possibilities existed— rectangular, "U" (i.e., 
horseshoe), or irregular. A rectangular end had 
square corners, while the "U" corners were rounded. 
Considering the mano's generally rectangular shape 
and the fact that they were locked into the same 
reciprocating motion by the trough's walls, the most 
frequently recorded variability should be rectangular. 
Such was the case at the two sites with the larger 
sample sizes; 29SJ 629 and 29SJ 389, where 
rectangular comprised approximately 85 percent. 
The small sample size accounts for the variation at 
the other sites. 

It is not clear why the rectangular shape did not 
occur in every case. When using a smaller mano to 
replace a worn out earlier one, perhaps the miller 
pulled the replacement slightly closer to herself and 
farther onto the near-end shelf. The replacement 
mano would be shorter, lighter, and less constrained 
by the trough's walls. Through time, this action 
would wear away more of the center of the near-end 
shelf and create the appearance of a U. The few that 
were recorded as "irregular" are even more 
perplexing. This area of the metate may have been 
subjected to secondary use contemporaneously with 
its primary grinding function or used in another 
context after it ceased to be a metate. In either case, 
the additional use went undetected during the 
analysis. 

Assessment of the Amount of Use 

The assessment of the amount of use (Table 
9.18) was recorded, in spite of the initial assumption 
that most metates would be used until worn-out. 
Light use was considered to be a trough which was 
worn one-third of the way or less through the metate. 
Moderate use measured between one-third and two- 
thirds and heavy use was greater than two-thirds. 



One metate was recovered with no use, and a 
category of "pecked outline" was added. One 
essentially identical pecked outline metate was 
recovered from Salmon Ruin (Shelley 1980). As 
discussed in more detail in the following section, less 
than 10 metates actually had a hole worn through the 
trough. All of the remaining metates had a 
sufficiently thick trough to permit more grinding. An 
actual percentage of wear, determined by the ratio of 
trough depth to overall stone thickness, is included in 
the following discussion. Those results generally 
agree with the more broadly defined categories of this 
variable. 

The majority of metates were also the most 
worn— 444 were worn more than two-thirds of the 
way through the stone. There are, however, six sites 
where the distribution between the medium and the 
heavy use is almost equivalent in numbers and 
percentage, but the small sample size is a factor. 
Metates with wear between one-third and two-thirds 
of the total thickness occurred 273 times; many 
months, if not years, of grinding could have occurred 
on these stones. 

The most surprising category is represented by 
the 77 metates which were only lightly used, that is, 
with less than one-third of the stone removed. Such 
metates were recovered from every site. Had they 
been recovered in a primary context, they would 
represent the grinding stone being used when the site 
was abandoned but most were broken up and located 
in other than primary use contexts. The possibilities 
of destruction to prevent their use by enemies or 
breakage by the enemies themselves have been 
suggested but supporting evidence for such scenarios 
is lacking. 

A single unused metate was recovered during 
the project. Site 29SJ 389 produced one metate with 
a roughened surface but with no evidence of any 
grinding. An outline of an open-at-one-end trough 
had been pounded into the upper surface with 
hammerstones. Several were recorded with use 
depths of 0.1 and 0.2 cm. 

Floor Wear 

As noted in the literature review, metates 
generally changed through time from a portable tool 
which could be moved around and even leaned 
against a wall when not needed, to a permanent 



1052 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9. 18. 


Amount 


of use. 




















Use 








Light \ 


<l/3) 


Medium (1/3-2/3) 


Heavy ( 


>2/3) 


Pecked Outline 


Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. % 


29SJ 423 


- 


- 


2 


50.0 


2 


50.0 


- 


29SJ 1659 


1 


33.3 


1 


33.3 


1 


33.3 


- 


29SJ 628 


8 


30.8 


12 


46.1 


6 


23.1 


- 


29SJ 299 


6 


17.1 


14 


40.0 


15 


42.9 


- 


29SJ 724 


4 


22.2 


7 


38.9 


7 


38.9 


- 


29SJ 1360 


2 


11.7 


6 


35.3 


9 


52.9 


- 


29SJ 629 


11 


12.8 


23 


26.7 


52 


60.5 


- 


29SJ 627 


11 


6.3 


49 


28.0 


115 


65.7 


- 


29SJ 389 


21 


2.6 


109 


34.8 


182 


58.1 


1 0.3 


29SJ 390 


2 


33.3 


2 


33.3 


2 


33.3 


- 


29SJ 391 


2 


13.3 


9 


60.0 


4 


26.7 


- 


29SJ 827 


8 


13.3 


27 


45.0 


25 


41.7 


- 


29SJ 633 


1 


2.7 


12 


32.4 


24 


64.9 


- 



Table 9. 19. Floor wear. 



Location of Floor Wear 





None 


Bottom 




Edge 


Both Bottom 

& Edge 


Unknown 
No. % 




Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


t 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


Total 


29SJ 423 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 1659 




- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 628 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 299 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 724 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 1360 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 629 


38 


33.6 


57 


50.4 


- 


- 


- 


- 


18 


15.9 


113 


29SJ 627 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 389 


166 


47.2 


114 


32.3 


2 


0.6 


9 


2.6 


61 


17.3 


352 


29SJ 390 


5 


83.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


16.7 


6 


29SJ 391 


5 


31.3 


6 


37.5 


- 


- 


1 


6.3 


4 


25.0 


16 


29SJ 827 


25 


38.5 


22 


33.8 


- 


- 


3 


4.6 


15 


23.1 


65 


29SJ 633 


22 


50.0 


13 


29.5 


_1 


2.3 


" 


- 


8 


18.2 


44 


Totals 


261 




212 




3 




13 




107 




596 



fixture in a mealing bin. While it is generally 
assumed that metates were permanently set into adobe 
in mealing bins, the published literature concerning 
Chaco Canyon is frequently ambiguous. Occasional 
photographs in the archives show trough metates in 
bins which do not appear to be set in adobe (e.g., the 
only recorded bins at Chetro Ketl). Through 
repeated use, metates not set in adobe develop a 



polish on the surfaces which are in contact with the 
floor or with the supporting props because the stone 
moves with each grinding stroke. 

That metates were still considered to be portable 
tools even later in time is not only indicated by the 
lack of mealing bins but occasionally by the metates 
themselves. For example, one partial metate 



Metates 1053 



recovered from Room 3, Plaza Feature 1 at Pueblo 
Alto (FS No. 922) had a concavity 8.5 cm long, 2 
cm high, and 5 cm deep chipped into the left lateral 
side at the near-end. This metate was very large with 
the near-end shelf measuring 18 cm in width and the 
lateral shelves measuring 13 cm wide. The stone 
itself was tabular and quite flat; therefore, the 
underside was in full contact with the floor. This 
concavity facilitated moving the metate by providing 
a location to slip the fingers in under the stone when 
lifting. 

Areas of polish, varying from 10 cm in 
diameter to the full width of the stone and normally 
not associated with other wear patterns, were 
recorded as floor wear (Table 9.19). There were no 
cases where the entire bottom of the stone was 
polished; rather, raised areas and the portions toward 
the far end were the most commonly 
polished— although during the analysis it was 
eventually observed on all portions of the under 
surface. The largest amount (44 percent) indicated 
no polish, whereas 36 percent had polish on the 
underside. 

The unknown category (18 percent) represents 
areas of polish in conjunction with other wear. 
Apparent polish appeared in unlikely locations, such 
as cavities; or possible polish was disrupted by post- 
depositional processes. 

In several cases, each from 29SJ 629 and 29SJ 
389, an area of very high polish occurred on the 
underside. It was not only located on the upper 
portion of raised areas but also extended down their 
sides to the flatter portion of the underside. In one 
case, two raised areas, their sides, and the depression 
between them had this high degree of polish. In a 
number of cases, the lower far edge was both 
polished to this high degree and actually rounded 
from whatever activity was being performed. This 
polish may be the result of a pliable material such as 
leather being worked repeatedly back and forth and 
which is capable of conforming to the contours of the 
rock. It seems unlikely that this high degree of 
polish is the result of floor wear because it conforms 
to the contours of the stone. Portions of these 
contours, that is, the sides and concavities, could not 
be in contact with the floor. It is possible that they 
would be in contact with an adobe mortar, but it is 
unknown if slight movement against the bed of adobe 
could result in the high degree of polish exhibited on 



some metates. For this reason, it is labled as bin 
wear (Table 9.20), but the mechanism which created 
it is unknown. 

This interpretation of polish resulting from bin 
wear is bolstered by the fact that identical wear was 
observed on the lateral edges of some metates, either 
alone or in combination with additional polish on the 
bottom of the stone (Table 9. 19). If one assumes that 
adobe is not as effective a bonding agent as concrete 
and that a metate set into adobe is not completely 
immobile and further, it moves slightly during each 
grinding stroke, eventually the lateral edges would 
also be polished. An extended grinding experiment 
may offer more insight. As recorded in the table, 
three metates had polish only on their edges, two at 
29SJ 389 and one at 29SJ 633; 13 were polished on 
the both the edges and underside. 

Mealing Bins 

While mealing bins had been uncovered during 
most of the excavations throughout the canyon, the 
most frequent observation is that they had been 
dismantled prehistorically, either due to a change in 
room function or to a reconstruction or replastering 
of the floor (e.g., Judd 1954:133-135; 1959:44-45 or 
the Chaco Project excavations). In addition to Pueblo 
Bonito and Pueblo del Arroyo, mealing bins or 
possible mealing bins (usually only remnants) were 
excavated in a pithouse between Be 50 and Be 51 
(Kluckhohn and Reiter 1939), Room 19 at Be 50, in 
two rooms at Be 51, in one room each at Be 58 and 
Be 59 (Archive Number 2051 and 2106), and in four 
rooms at Be 362. Vivian and Mathews (1964:92) 
note that none were recovered from Kin Kletso 
(although slabs in the rubble of collapsed upper story 
rooms could have been from bins); one room in 
Chetro Ketl had four bins; one set of mealing bins 
occurred at Be 192; five mealing bins were found at 
Be 362; and one occurred at Be 236. At 
Shabik'eshchee Village, Roberts (1929:14) recorded 
one metate in a "fairly large oval" floor depression. 
During Chaco Project excavations, bins and/or 
remnants such as the catchment basins were recorded 
at 29SJ 1360, 29SJ 627, 29SJ 629, 29SJ 389, and 
others. 

The number of bins ranged from one to 10 at 
Pueblo Bonito; with the possible exception of the 
room with 10, they were generally in living rooms 
rather than specialized grinding chambers. In 



1054 Chaco Artifacts 



w 



I 

o 
►5 



u 



k 



© i \o 



CO 

cs 



O . , , 



00 vn 

<s° © 



s ' ~ 



— — 1 f~ — I -H 



o\ t*- 

On CS 

rs vo 

>-» i-% 

co co 

on o 

<s <s 



o — . r- 

On On CS 

CO CO 00 

>-> l-> l-> 

CO CO CO 

On On On 

CS CS <S 



i 






C G M 

ill 
III 

u.£p 



C K CQ 

5 « o 

Iti 



a Q 



C -- 



2 II 

a 61 



|o 

60 fi 

el 



4>0 

Er 
60 5 

*3 



Z S g 
g J E 

5 g-a 

fcV O M 

£Pt > « 

cG w 4> 



l|5 

|5| 



Si 

J 3 



6* 



v>co©vocsr--cooo<S 



co 


to 


<s 


• 


cs 


o 

CS 


CO 


CO 

co 
CO 


• 


vo 

co 
<s 




a-. 


' 


' 


1 


1 


co 


1 


On 


<s 


' 


00 


"1 


<-n 



n * ' oo Tf 



• i i i 



i i i i i 



• ■it 



" ' -H > ■ ■ ^h| CS 



w> -h co \r> f~ (S 

co ' od co t-~ f- oo 
r- r~ co oo f v© 



VI CS Tt — c o </-> 
f~ -" co co co 

CS ■* 



vo 
d 



i i i i i 



■ i i i i i 



Of-;r~;OOo\C-)-HV>C"» 

dvo'vovXocSTrr-.'odvo 
'* , vooor--o«i-HO — . 



CSCSvor~CSONVOCSO-^ 

<s cs cs -< © co 
cs 



' 'I 



VO On 
1- v/-> 



© co co co 



co -h —i co 



oo r-; © cs 

-h <s i -* CO 



CO VO CO 
VO •* CS 



CS CO CS -h i —i rO --i| •-" 



© 


r~ 


CO 


co 


o\ 


VO 


CO 


en 


o 


v© 


1 v> 


v> 


-H 


© 


i \o 


r-! 





On 








© 


















co 


vi 


00 


On 


■«»■ 


VO 


On 


t> 


On 


© 




r- 


CO 




<N 


VO 


cs 


On 


cs 


CO 


<N 


<N 


00 


ON 


On 


<s 


CO 




■* 


■ H 


VO 


CS 


r- 


* H 


VO 


VO 


co 


en 


f) 


oo 


vo 


03 


CO 


co 


00 


00 


CO 


co 


CO 


(O 


CO 


CO 


oo 


co 


co 


3 


On 


On 


On 


On 


On 


On 


o> 


On 


On 


On 


On 


On 


On 


P 


cs 


CM 


<S 


CS 


<S 


<S 


<N 


C-l 


<S 


CN 


<N 


CS 


CS 


H 



Metates 1055 



addition to their generally dismantled state, the 
excavators commented not only on the almost 
complete lack of slab metates in association with bins 
but also on the almost complete lack of slab metates 
from the sites. The usual Southwestern 

generalization is that slab metates occurred in bins; 
whereas, in Chaco Canyon, trough metates were in 
the bins. 

Another difference between the prehistoric bins 
and bins recorded during the ethnographic present 
derives not from the bins directly but from the 
absence of rock with varying degrees of natural 
coarseness in Chaco Canyon. Ethnographers 
commented on the juxtaposition of such materials and 
the ease with which meal is passed down the line of 
increasingly fine metates so that the end result is very 
finely ground material. In Chaco Canyon, the meal 
could have been as finely ground, but the technique 
would have been different and involved a 
combination of grinding surface pecking and extra 
effort on the part of the miller. 

Mealing bins were found during the excavation 
of Rooms 103 and 110 at 29SJ 389; however, they 
had been dismantled by the room's occupants prior to 
replastering the floor. There were no bins used by 
the last occupants on the final floor in these two 
rooms. Room 103 had three mealing bins in the 
southwest corner and Room 110 had six mealing bins 
across the south wall. Broken pieces of metates were 
used in portions of the bin construction in Room 103. 
An adobe remnant still in place also revealed the 
shape of the corner of one of the metates being held 
in place. 

Condition 

Table 9.21 refers to the condition of the piece 
being analyzed; observations varied from whole and 
usable to a fragment from which no complete 
measurements could be obtained. Those coded as 
morphologically complete but unusable were broken 
into pieces, but a sufficient number of the pieces 
were recovered and matched together so that 
complete measurements could be determined. Pieces 
were matched not only from the same room but also 
from across the site (see the discussion and Table 
9.21 [Appendix 9.B]). The pieces which could 
provide only a few measurements, and even those 
yielding no complete measurements were still useful. 
Many other attributes relevant to differing research 



questions were retained and were recorded in the 
same manner as if the piece were not broken. 

Surprisingly few complete metates were found 
by the Chaco Project. A total of 36 whole and 
usable metates (4 percent of the number of items 
analyzed) were recovered from eight sites; five sites 
had none. Several of the individual site percentages 
were relatively high, although the small sample size 
issue is always germane. Complete metates were 
found at the following sites: 1) two out of 352 pieces 
(0.6 percent) at 29SJ 389, 2) four out of 208 pieces 
(1.9 percent) at 29SJ 627, and 3) six out of 113 
pieces (5.3 percent) at 29SJ 629. For whatever 
reasons, these uniform rocks were too tempting a tar- 
get for subsequent individuals, generations, or new- 
comers. Rather than continuing to use an apparently 
functional grinding tool for its intended purpose, they 
were destroyed long before they were worn-out. 

The majority of the items analyzed were broken 
(n = 854 or 96 percent). Of this number, 31 were 
considered analytically complete but unusable; all 
whole measurements and other attributes could be 
recorded. These metates were considered unusable 
because they were broken, not because they were 
wom-out. Examples of this category were recovered 
from almost every site; they were broken 
prehistorically but enough pieces were found and 
matched together to provide a total analysis. 
Following destruction, some pieces were recycled 
into other tools or building material. 

The second greatest number of pieces analyzed 
were those for which no whole measurements were 
possible. A total of 320 pieces were clearly 
recognizable as metate fragments but were 
sufficiently broken that no complete length, width, or 
thickness could be determined. Table 9.21 reflects 
differences between the analysts; the subdivisions and 
combination of whole measurements were added 
during the second half of the analysis. It is unlikely 
that the sites analyzed earlier would not have yielded 
fragments without at least one whole measurement, 
especially thickness. The table indicates that almost 
all of the metates recovered were broken, but that an 
occasional piece represented a complete length or 
width and the thickness could be determined on many 
pieces (n=435). 

These were not the smallest fragments 
recovered, however. The smallest, generally hand- 



1056 Chaco Artifacts 



size fragments were tabulated separately because little 
information relevant to the overall study would be 
gained by computerizing the measurements, weight, 
or occasional observations. Summaries are provided 
in Appendix 9F. 

The Metate as a Multifunctional Tool 

The emphasis of discussions concerning metates 
is always heavily weighted toward their primary 
function of maize and other seed grinding. Many of 
the Chacoan trough metates, however, were also 
contemporaneously used for a variety of other 
purposes and were multifunctional tools. Their size, 
shape, and weight provided sufficient mass to absorb 
blows from pounding without destroying the metate. 
Additional surfaces were available for secondary 
tasks. The three shelves surrounding most trough 
metates— two lateral and one at the near-end closest 
to the miller — were sufficiently large to be used in 
other household tasks. Because metates were 
recycled into other tools and architectural elements 
following their metate use-life, the analyses of 
additional metate functions focused on those activities 
which co-occurred with the primary activity of 
grinding. The recycling of metates into other tool 
types following their destruction is discussed in the 
next section. 

In most cases, only one additional activity is 
indicated; in other instances, two or more activities 
were indicated, e.g., grinding hematite in one area 
and anvil wear in another. In such cases, an attempt 
was made to discern the primary and secondary 
activities. Location, size of the areas involved, and 
intensity of the wear patterns were considered. When 
no distinction was apparent, an arbitrary decision was 
made. The importance of the observation is the 
multiple functions, not which one was the most 
important. 

As indicated hi Tables 9.22, 9.23, 9.24, 9.25 
and 9.26, metates were multifunctional tools at all 13 
sites included in this analysis— even those with 
sample sizes as low as three and five. All temporal 
periods, pithouses, and surface rooms are 
represented. Up to four use areas were coded for the 
upper surface, the trough, and the right, left, and 
near-end shelves. The bottom side was considered as 
a single area. While the greatest number of 
additional use areas in the overall sample was four 
(n = 2), the usual was one (n=279); the use of two 



areas occurred 37 times and three were noted five 
times. 

For all sites, additional use varied from a low 
of 6.2 percent at 29SJ 827, to a high of 43.8 percent 
at 29SJ 391. The results at 29SJ 827 can be 
generally disregarded due to the relatively 
deteriorated nature of the previously excavated 
metates. They, along with the manos, hammer- 
stones, and other miscellaneous ground stone, were 
left at the site following the excavation and were on 
the ground exposed to the elements and shifting sand 
for several decades prior to this analysis. For those 
sites with a sample size of 30 or more (excluding 
29SJ 827), the percentages range from 11.5 to 38.6 
of the total (Table 9.22). 

As expected, the location of additional use was 
most frequent on the shelves surrounding the trough. 
These surfaces were most accessible even on a 
portable stone which could be turned over. 
Secondary use of the trough occurred at most 
sites — combinations of upper and lower surfaces and 
the trough were noted at 29SJ 629, 29SJ 389, and 
29SJ 633. No combinations were recorded for 29 SJ 
390, 29SJ 391, or 29SJ 827, and the combinations 
were not considered at the other sites. Even in the 
case of more-than-one-use-areas, only one activity 
was monitored, for example, anvil wear on two 
locations. If a second activity occurred, such as 
pecking in addition to anvil wear, the second was 
recorded separately (Table 9.23). 

Dense concentrations of hammerstone peck 
marks occurred on the undersides in 16 cases (Figure 
9.12): at 29SJ 628 (1), 29SJ 629 (6), 29SJ 389 (3), 
29SJ 391 (3), 29SJ 633 (2), and 29SJ 827 (1). Such 
a concentration was also observed on the bottom of 
the round metate excavated from Una Vida and left 
at Chaco (Vivian's FS No. 2209). It is uncertain 
whether these were the result of additional activity, 
the beginnings of a trough which was abandoned in 
favor of the other side, or the residuals from initial 
metate manufacture. The latter is most plausible as 
the metate's maker attempted to remove unwanted 
projections so that the stone would lie flat. Other 
activity on the bottoms of the metates could have 
occurred following its use as a grinding implement; 
additional variables, such as the presence or absence 
of polish from the floor or a bin, were considered. 
In some cases, an arbitrary decision was made 
concerning contemporary or post-metate use. 



Metates 1057 



f 



b 

« 



8 

B 

v. 

I 






* 



$£ 



K 



po On c> <r\ \r> *n 

v> -- © ' r4 —« * 



-h ' <s — <s| no 



i i i 



© 



'I - 1 



i i i i 



I (V) I I I 



'I n 



**! •*! "J 

po p<i >/-> 



On ■<«; po 
d -I © 



-H pP, — . 



<s -« 

00 CO 



'I ^ 



-I 



©r~r~p')>0'fw>-H'Op'>oo<sr- 



o 


NO 

NO 


NO 


po 


PO 


o\ 


- 




00 

po 




po 


no 




- 


<S 


*~* 


<S 


m 


u-> 


tn 




no 


<s 


P» 


«* 


o 



o 


o 


— 


■* 


vO 


00 


On 


r-- 


r- 


oo 


f> 


>/-) 


o 

00 


1 o 

NO 


NO 


NO 

00 


o 


oo 


</■> 




NO 
NO 


po 


On 


o 
t- 


Tf 


' oo 


<s 


On 


<s 


on 

00 


00 

o 


po 

o 


T 


r~ 


O 

NO 


8 



po<noooNTfNooNr~ONO-H 

C-»NO<SONr-»rO<S<SOOONON 

'r-HNOfSt- — NONOPOPOPO 



00 NO 



co to co to 

On On On On 
<S <S r-l <s 



to to </) to to to c/5 2 

OnOnOnOnOnOnOnO 



1058 Chaco Artifacts 



S 
"a 

"S3 



<3 






2 



00 

"S 
|5 



c> <-> d - - © £ | ^ 



1 

o 
o 
u 

CO 

Ul 

o 
'a 1 



~S o 



%8 



h5 









<n - c*| 2 



o 



ti8 



si 

■u pa 

Oh 



cfl Ui 

0«< 



— < I 00 I-H ^ 



<♦>. -< r-> 



P-O 



,a 



■| <s 



8 



oo c; 

I —< > O 






-N^NN-^?i' H "" ,, ' ,, |° 



ro r- >n oo -^ r-; 

2 S * d ^ S Si " 



t- o 
n© 



>C - M « 



- *■ - M 



q 


*"! 


°i 


°i 


r- 


>♦ 


d 


00 


• \r, 


d 


no 


>/-) 


<N 













rt _H •* On 



o — ■*■ 



no no 

© On 

r- r- 






r- oo ci v> 



oo d on o» o 

_ r i _ ,- On 



CO 

o\ 



oo 


On 


"* 


NO 


On 


r- 


C"N1 


On 


<s 


CI 


<S 


<N 


NO 


<M 


r- 


^ 


NO 


NO 


^ 


^ 


i— * 


1-^ 


*■» 


*^ 


(/) 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


On 


On 


On 


On 


On 


O* 


<M 


r4 


r4 


<S 


n 


n 



—i o 



f^ f»5 00 NO 



CO CO CO 

On On On 

<s <s r» 






3 

© 

c«3 
© 

I 

-Q 



i i i ' in 



o 
Z 



r-1 
© 



i T3 
00 ' 






SS 



NO On 

r~ d 



n - « no 



(^oo«^ONoq<i ,0 . 

V^^^W^OOdONO 



w ^ ^ 1 °i "! *• 
m no -< on »i « JT; 



vi ^t 



~* •* p- O 



rt « n <*> * •": 1 *! 

on' lr 4^r~NOoocn^- 



n o, ^ ^ n <n| N 

NO 



s1sr5I§ssIss5 

lllllllllllli 



Metates 1059 



Table 9.25. Number of other utilized areas. 



Number of Other Utilized Areas 












1 




2 


3 






4 




9 




Site No. 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


No. 


% 


Total 


29SJ 423 


5 


100.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


. 


- 


. 


_ 


5 


29SJ 1659 


1 


33.3 


2 


66.7 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


. 


. 


_ 


3 


29SJ 628 


26 


86.7 


4 


13.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


. 


_ 


30 


29SJ 299 


33 


91.7 


2 


5.6 


1 


2.8 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


_ 


36 


29SJ 724 


22 


100.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


_ 


_ 


22 


29SJ 1360 


15 


88.2 


1 


5.9 


1 


5.9 


- 


- 


- 


. 


. 


. 


17 


29SJ 629 


104 


92.0 


3 


2.7 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


6 


5.3 


113 


29SJ 627 


187 


89.9 


18 


8.7 


2 


1.0 


- 


- 


1 


0.5 


- 


. 


208 


29SJ 389 


330 


93.8 


20 


5.7 


1 


0.3 


- 


- 


1 


0.3 


. 


_ 


352 


29SJ 390 


6 


100.0 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


. 


_ 


6 


29SJ 391 


12 


75.0 


1 


6.3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


3 


18.8 


16 


29SJ 827 


63 


96.9 


1 


1.5 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


1.5 


_ 


_ 


65 


29SJ 633 
Totals 


41 
845 


93.2 


_1 

53 


2.3 


5 


- 





- 


3 


- 


_2 
11 


4.5 


44 
917 



Table 9.26. Characteristics of other utilized areas. 

Types of Other Utilized Areas 







Ground 


Gouged 






Battered 




Battered 






Site No. 


Pigment 


Abraded 


Pecked 


Kill Hole 


Striations 


(Passive) 


Burned 


(Active) 


Unknown 


Total 


29SJ 423 


- 


- 


- 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


1 of 5 


29SJ 1659 


1 


- 


- 


1 


- 


1 


- 


- 


. 


3 of 3 


29SJ 628 


1 


5 


1 


- 


- 


1 


- 


- 


. 


8 of 30 


29SJ 299 


3 


2 


3 


4 


5 


3 


- 


- 


1 


21 of 36 


29SJ 724 


- 


- 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 of 22 


29SJ 1360 


1 


2 


2 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


6 of 17 


29SJ 629 


1 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


- 


6 


9 of 113 


29SJ 627 


5 


8 


13 


- 


6 


10 


1 


- 


1 


44 of 208 


29SJ 389 


2 


13 


3 


- 


3 


2 


- 


1 


1 


25 of 352 


29SJ 390 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


Oof 6 


29SJ 391 


- 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


3 


4 of 16 


29SJ 827 


- 


- 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


2 


3 of 65 


29SJ 633 


_z 


_j; 


_! 


- 


_; 


_^ 






2 


3 of 44 


Totals 


14 


33 


24 


1 


14 


17 


2 


1 


16 


128 of 917 



1060 Chaco Artifacts 



Because the metate provided a convenient 
surface for other tasks (Table 9.24) (Figures 9.17, 
9.18, and 9.19), the major secondary use resulted 
from pounding, grinding, or gouging. The most 
common use was grinding/abrading (n = 92), closely 
followed by pecking from hammerstones (n = 87), and 
gouging/battering/hacking (n=84). Residual pigment 
was noted in 16 cases; hematite and occasionally 
limonite were expediently ground for use in 
decorations and paint. Anvil wear (Akins, this 
volume) was also recorded (Figures 9.20, 9.21, and 
9.22). 

Variables 5-9 (Table 9.24) were recorded only 
for 29SJ 629, 29SJ 389, 29SJ 390, 29SJ 391, 29SJ 
633, and 29SJ 827. All were relatively rare. A 
single instance of an "incised groove" was noted; it 
was similar to those observed on shaft straighteners. 
The 29 cases of "ground/gouged" and the three of 
"passive abrader" were identical to wear patterns 
recorded on various anvils (Akins, this volume). As 
discussed previously, the 16 instances of "con- 
centrations of pecks on the bottom" probably resulted 
from the removal of projections on the bottom of the 
rock to allow the metate to rest flat. If so, they are 
more appropriately considered part of the metate 
manufacture and not a result of concurrent use. 

The three cases of "wide deep striations in the 
trough" (Figure 9.23), recorded at Pueblo Alto (29SJ 
389), are not to be confused with the commonly 
observed fine striations on metates and manos 
resulting from the daily grind. Rather, these were 3 
to 5 mm wide, several-mm-deep parallel grooves. 
They were sufficiently parallel and uniform that they 
resulted from a simultaneous activity rather than from 
some sequentially undertaken task. 

In addition to the major secondary wear 
discussed above, there were 61 cases in which 
metates were used for what could be called tertiary 
wear (Table 9.25). Included within the 61 are 17 
instances of quaternary wear, that is, a fourth distinct 
activity occurring in another discrete location on the 
metate. All were considered contemporary with the 
primary function of grinding. With respect to the 
tertiary and quaternary wear, there were 53 cases of 
using a single second area, five cases of using two 
areas, and three cases of using four areas. As seen 
in Table 9.26, these activities also resulted in 
battering, grinding, and gouging. These additional, 
but less extensive tertiary activities were similar to 



the major secondary uses, except for two instances of 
burning. One metate each from 29SJ 627 and 29SJ 
629 was marked with a burned area, the 
characteristic red of burned sandstone, as if a small 
fire were started directly on the rock. The contexts 
of recovery did not suggest obvious post-use or post- 
depositional burning. 

To summarize, grinding seed crops was the 
metate' s primary activity and what gave them their 
final form. But metates were also multifunctional 
and were used at all sites as a platform for pounding, 
gouging, and other kinds of grinding. Up to four 
different activities were recorded on a single stone 
but the norm was one additional use. In spite of the 
presence of other tool types, such as anvils, wear 
identical to that recorded on anvils was occasionally 
recorded on a metate. There are occasions when it 
is more expedient to use a tool at hand than to dig the 
correct one out of the tool kit. 

Metates were multifunctional tools with large 
flat surfaces providing a convenient, readily 
accessible platform for completing household tasks, 
in addition to grinding seeds. All surfaces were 
used, and an identical use was often found on several 
disparate areas of a surface. 

Additionally, the multifunctional component of 
a trough metate was largely lost as open-at-one-end 
styles were replaced by open-at-two-end forms and 
was certainly lost when slab metates became the 
norm. Open-at-two-end forms do not have the near- 
end shelf and, at least in the few cases of the 
Chacoan assemblage, the lateral shelves are very 
narrow— in some cases, too narrow to permit use as 
a platform. Slab metates have no shelves at all; they 
are smaller, and they are usually permanently set into 
an adobe layer in a mealing bin, thereby precluding 
the use of the stone's bottom. While a limited 
amount of secondary battering or grinding could 
occur on the grinding surface of a slab metate, any 
extensive secondary use would destroy portions of the 
grinding surface which would then have to be 
repaired prior to the next grinding session. 

Due to the smaller stone size of the usual slab 
metate, when compared to the usual open-at-one-end 
variety, permanent placement in a bin was necessary. 
The smaller size and correspondingly smaller weight 
made slab metates less stable and more easily shifted 
by each stroke of the mano. A constantly shifting 



Metates 1061 




Figure 9. 1 7. Trough metate fragment (FS 530-06) with concentration of 
pecks recovered from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Other Structure 
7. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 14222). 




Figure 9. 18. Trough metate with concentration of peck marks. From Pueblo 
Alto (29SJ 389), Plaza 1, Grid 35. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco 
Archive Negative No. 14219). 



1062 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 9. 19. Trough met ate fragment (FS 1138) with peck marks in 
trough. From Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Room 103, Test Pit 
5, 9 cm above floor. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive 
Negative No. 14221). 




Figure 9. 20. Trough metate fragment (433-07) showing where bottom was 
used extensively as an anvil. From Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), 
Other Structure 6. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative 
No. 14214). 



Metates 1063 




Figure 9.21. Trough metate fragment with evidence of anvil wear. From 
Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Room 147, Test Trench 1, Layer 7. 
(15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 23609). 




Figure 9.22. Trough metate fragment (FS 1150) illustrating a shelf used as an 
anvil. From Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Room 103, Test Pit 7, Layer 
1. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 14213). 



1064 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 9.23. Trough metate fragment (FS 4177-02) with deep striations. 
From Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Plaza 1, Grid 155. (5 cm scale) 
(NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 15203). 



metate would be a distraction and would cause 
frequent interruptions as the miller paused to 
reposition it. The larger and much heavier trough 
metates had sufficient weight and volume to remain 
stable during use and to absorb blows without 
breaking during secondary use. 

Trough and Slab Metates 

As previously indicated, one of the underlying 
causes of the change in metate morphology was the 
association of the change in the races of maize with 
the change from trough to slab metates. The metate' s 
primary function was to grind maize and seeds. The 
transition from basin to trough metate occurs within 
the context of the increasing dependence on 
agriculture and the change from grinding wild seeds 
to grinding cultivated maize. More ground material 
is produced per unit of the latter than is produced 
from the former. 

Metates were basic to the adaptation and were 
an indispensible and functional tool required to 
prepare daily meals. Several different races of maize 
were ostensibly relied upon through time; later 
varieties had larger cobs with more rows of larger 
kernels and therefore produced more volume per unit 



of grinding. The kernels of the later varieties were 
softer and easier to grind than the earlier "flint" 
variety. The literature suggests that the slab metate 
was a response to the softer kernels because the walls 
of the trough metate were required to constrain the 
pieces of the flint corn as it was initially pulverized. 
The softer variety did not shatter with the same 
velocity. 

Slab metates essentially co-occur with mealing 
bins. While the walls of the mealing bins would also 
serve to constrain flying pieces of kernels, as the 
walls of trough metates are alleged to do, this 
possibility has generally been overlooked. Because 
there were almost no slab metates and trough metates 
were extensively used in mealing bins, the issue is 
moot in Chaco Canyon. 

Unfortunately, the archeological record of the 
sites selected by the Chaco Project did not yield 
metates in primary context, and the amounts of corn 
recovered were relatively low. The result is that the 
relationship of the metate' s morphology and the race 
of corn, cannot be addressed. There is, however, an 
additional reason why the issue cannot be addressed 
at this time and certainly not in the manner in which 
it was originally conceived. 



Metates 1065 



Mollie S. Toll (personal communication 1996) 
indicated that recent analysts have been unable to 
replicate the results of Hugh Cutler (the primary 
proponent of the differing races of maize) with their 
own data, and his distinctions have not withstood the 
test of time. The issue is not clear cut and apparently 
cannot be resolved definitively without molecular 
marker analysis and DNA-based genetic studies. 
Some results may be available within a few years. 
One drawback to the DNA study is that unburned 
material is required, limiting the results to a few 
archeological settings. 

Toll indicated that relatively few kernels have 
been recovered from Chaco Canyon; therefore, even 
such basic information as a predominance of flint or 
flour maize (if that distinction is even real) is 
essentially unknown. Eight-, ten-, and twelve-row 
corn cobs have been recovered from sites in Chaco 
Canyon but their actual distribution has never been 
systematically studied. Some 12-row cobs have been 
recovered from greathouse sites, and it is Toll's 
impression that the 10-row cobs may be restricted to 
sites from one temporal period, but more study is 
required. 

Questions which could be addressed include the 
spatial and temporal distribution of the morphological 
types, genetic markers and the issue of corn races 
with differing physical characteristics, and attempts to 
discern where they were grown. Were Chacoan 
farmers growing everything locally or were certain 
"types" of corn grown elsewhere and brought into the 
central canyon? Areas peripheral to Chaco Canyon 
averaged higher annual precipitation, were more 
stable, less stressed, and more predictable (Schelberg 
1982). It would also be productive to include the 
effects of environmental factors such as precipitation 
and length of growing season in such a study because 
they alter the size of cobs and kernels. 

A component of such a study should include the 
changes in the grinding characteristics of different 
types of maize after each have been placed in storage 
and allowed to dry out. The length of time in storage 
should be varied. Recently harvested flour corn 
grinds relatively easily, but how much more difficult 
is grinding after drying out? The duration for which 
maize maintains its nutritional value should also be 
ascertained. 

Currently, the most that can be said in this 



regard is that the corn being ground in Chaco Canyon 
was best suited to the characteristics of an open-at- 
one-end trough metate; open-at-both-ends trough 
metates and slab metates were rare, but not unknown, 
and not all were from late sites. Through time, 
mealing bins evolved into more formal structures 
made of sandstone slabs and adobe. Nevertheless, 
trough metates continued to be used and were simply 
placed in the bins. Sometimes, they were immo- 
bilized in a bed of adobe in the bin; other times, they 
were not permanently fixed in the bins. 

Metates— The End 

The majority of the metates recovered during 
the Chaco Project were broken. In a few instances, 
sufficient pieces were recovered so that complete 
measurements could be determined; however, 
fragments of varying sizes were the norm. A 
reasonable initial assumption is that metate 
manufacture was sufficiently laborious that the millers 
would keep them until they were worn-out. To make 
a new one required procuring the stone; roughing out 
a blank; finishing it by pounding, flaking, pecking, 
and occasionally grinding; and finally starting a 
trough. After this process, it seems likely that it 
would be used until it was worn-out before recycling 
it into other tools and architectural elements. An 
exception are those metates reported to have been 
"killed" by pounding a hole through the trough to 
render them unusable. 

Interest in this issue led to recording the 
variables intended to monitor reasons for metate 
disposal and/or recycling. Surprisingly, few of the 
Chacoan metates were either worn out or killed. 
Most appear to have had years of use left in them at 
the time of their destruction. Fragments were 
recycled into a variety of tool types such as manos, 
anvils, hammerstones, paint palettes, or abraders; or 
they became architectural elements such as building 
stones, a vent shaft collar, fire dogs, post shims, a 
slab-lined firepit, a step, a slab cover, or a base for 
a mealing bin catchment basin. Given that metates 
were already shaped, generally thin and uniform, 
they were ideal for recycling. Why this occurred so 
frequently prior to wearing out is curious. 

Table 9.27 reports a use index: depth of the 
trough divided by the total thickness of the stone. As 
indicated, the greatest percentage of use at the sites 
was between 50 percent and 79 percent or, 



1066 Chaco Artifacts 



alternatively, between 20 percent and 50 percent of 
the stone remained unused. The range was from no 
use to 100 percent worn-out. No use was represented 
by one blank, that is, fully prepared with a pecked 
but not ground trough (recovered from 29SJ 389). A 
similarly pecked, but not ground, trough metate was 
recovered from the Salmon Ruin (Shelley 1980). 
Only four worn-out cases with holes in the trough 
were recorded from three of the sites, 29SJ 299, 29SJ 
423, and 29SJ 389. Six metates were recorded with 
kill holes— one each from 29SJ 423, 29SJ 1659, 29SJ 
1360, and 29SJ 389 (Figure 9.24), and two at 29SJ 
390. Holes caused by wear were differentiated from 
kill holes by virtue of the accompanying impact 
blows and gouge marks associated with the latter and 
the fact that several centimeters of trough thickness 
remained. 

While not discussed in detail, the thinnest part 
of the trough was also measured and recorded. Due 
to the irregularities in the bottom of a metate, using 
the total thickness of the stone would be deceiving if 
one were attempting to determine a metate' s actual 



use-life in years. The irregularities were often 
approximately several centimeters less than the total, 
or maximum thickness. This effectively reduces the 
use-life of a metate — a hole would occur more 
quickly than if the stone were a uniform thickness. 
Using this number to determine the index of wear 
would increase the percentage of wear in some cases, 
but does not change the number actually worn-out. 

The extent to which this could have been a 
concern to the millers is unknown. The decreasing 
thickness of the trough could be monitored on a 
portable stone but not on one permanently fixed into 
a bin. Nevertheless, only four metates were actually 
worn-out; therefore, a metate's use-life was not an 
issue of concern during the occupation of Chaco 
Canyon. This lack of concern for possible longevity 
was also apparent from another perspective. Several 
trough metates from 29SJ 389 were manufactured on 
extraordinarily thin rocks. One of the thinnest was a 
very hard gray piece only 3 cm thick (from Room 
103). The trough was halfway through, or 1.5 cm 
deep (Figure 9.10). The thinnest was a fragment 




Figure 9.24. Trough metate (FS 900-06) with kill hole. From Pueblo Alto (29SJ 
389), Plaza Feature 1. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative 
No. 14199). 



Metates 1067 



"S3 
2 

a* 
a 

B 



rs. 



o 



s* 



E* 



« 






<n .9 






r- r- <s 






r- q 



o^ 


m 


r» 


00 


■» 


o 


<N 


<N 


<N 


O) 


c« 


■* 


>© 


VO 


r~ 



'I "* 



r> 


<s 


— 1 


m 


— ■ 


v£> 


o 


"* 


0\ 


o 


Tf 


■* 


~~* 


■* 


i <s 


o 


o 


u~i 


C*> 


r» 




- 


- 


CS 


1 00 




- 


<N 


»/"> 


* 


O 


o 




eo 


r- 


CT> 






ts 


__ 


00 




1 


■* 




00 


1 


' 




cs 




\o 


• 


C^ 


' v> 




• 


' 


oo 


n 



vOOO c ^|C^'4;f<100>^0'*C~;-H 



«r>o©t»-c<*«r^v>©—«oor«i 



00 


o 


f> 




c*> 




o 


o\ 


00 


-D 


O 




~^ 


i \o 


oo 


1 


■* 


1 


?s 


r- 


i o 

CO 


W> 


"*- 




■*r 


1 CT\ 


<s 


1 


<s 


' 


00 




1 ■* 


<s 


"I 




r» 


t^ 


m 


^ 


t 


ci 




f) 


r~ 


CTv 


m 




■*»■ 


i \o 


00 


3 


r- 


PI 

CO 


vo 


Ov 


1 i- 


f) 


w> 




w-i 


1 o 


<s 


- 


- 


-« 


t 


00 


' - 


>/■> 


1 


>o 



o m P r- 



<s o — — ■ ml »© 



q 



■I <s 



O On 

»ov->oo\©-Hcir~ 

C1N©<S00O\<J\f»)<S 

-h-^voociovooo M 

e/3C/J</)C/3COC/)C/)<y)t/5t/5C/3e/3C/5 3 



1068 Chaco Artifacts 



from the wall clearing of Circular Structure 2 in the 
southeast corner of the plaza; it was 2 cm thick 
(Figure 9.25). 

Expedient behavior is one of the few observable 
reasons that the metates were broken up. Such 
behavior by a few families occurred at a temporally 
later site such as 29SJ 633. Many fragments were on 
the surface and limited excavations recovered pieces 
used in wall construction; most of those on the 
surface were from fallen walls. The site's occupants 
scrounged metates from other nearby abandoned sites 
in and around Marcia's Rincon and broke them into 
convenient building stones. Expedient behavior 
involving the use of metates during construction 
episodes at Pueblo Alto was noted at several 
locations, including construction of such large entities 
as Kiva 15, Plaza Feature 1, and several of the Other 
Structures in the main plaza, or smaller more 
personal facilities such as mealing bins in Room 103, 
and a firepit in Room 147. 

During the analysis, the me tat e fragments were 
analyzed to the fullest extent possible; usually at least 
one complete measurement (length, width, thickness, 
etc.) was possible, as were observations of 
manufacture, and secondary use. Because metate 
morphology is distinctive, pieces of all sizes were 
recognized. The smallest pieces were so incomplete, 
however, that they were simply counted, weighed, 
and measured, but not included in the computerized 
inventory. 

Following the destruction of a metate, some 
portions were simply discarded and others were 
remanufactured. Metate recycling took two major 
forms: use as other tools and use as architectural 
elements (Figure 9.26; and Appendix B). These will 
be discussed in turn. Overall, the number of tools 
made from broken metate pieces was a respectable 
percentage of the total recovered (remember that if 
two or more pieces could be joined into one larger 
piece, these were analyzed as a single piece). The 
total, 273 pieces recycled into new tools and 
architectural elements, represented 29.8 percent of 
the pieces analyzed (Table 9.28). There were 239 
individual tools, 25 multipurpose tools, and the use- 
wear of six could not be determined. Essentially all 
categories of the large tool component of the Chacoan 
tool kit were represented. At least one such item was 
recovered from each site. 



These tools included palettes, anvils, fire dogs, 
a mano, crusher /choppers, hammerstones, active 
abraders, numerous passive abraders, and several 
tools which combined two of these functions. Rare 
forms included the edge of one fragment from 29SJ 
633, which resembled a modern crosscut saw blade 
due to the manner of its flaking, and another which 
was recorded as a "notch" from 29 SJ 389. This 
notch is identical to those from the European Upper 
Paleolithic except that it is sandstone rather than a 
silicious material. One piece became a mano at 29SJ 
629; two pieces became post shims, one each at 29SJ 
627 and 29SJ 629; and two drill bases (platforms 
with holes drilled into them) were found, one each at 
29SJ 627 and 29SJ 389. A barely utilized metate, 
broken and reused as a slab cover, is illustrated in 
Figure 9.27. 

Disposition 

This variable monitored the end of the 
Chacoan's active use of the metates on a day-to-day 
basis (Table 9.29). As was often the case, the initial 
assumption that most would be worn out from 
intensive use was not confirmed; in fact, almost none 
were worn-out (only two at 29SJ 629 and one at 29SJ 
389). Two metates at 29SJ 389 and two at 29SJ 390 
had been killed. The category of "not obvious" was 
used to record those which were whole and 
apparently usable. These had no breaks or cracks, 
had many centimeters of thickness remaining in the 
trough, and some of the troughs showed little use 
following their final sharpening. Perhaps these were 
the last metates in use at the time of final 
abandonment and they were not subsequently 
scavenged. 

The largest number of metates, from 50 percent 
to 70 percent, had been broken. The breaks ranged 
from simply broken in half, usually along the long 
axis, to smashed into numerous pieces. Because none 
of the broken metates were recovered in a primary 
context, failure during use or sharpening cannot be 
determined, although some must have failed because 
their trough fragments were thin. While it is easy to 
recognize a metate fragment, the piece in hand may 
not be the one that failed. When a metate can no 
longer be used for its primary purpose because it is 
shaped, regular, smooth and conveniently located, it 
is efficient to break it up for use as another tool or 
building stone. Approximately 10 percent of the 



Metates 1069 




B 




Figure 9.25. Thinnest (2.0 cm total thickness) trough metate fragment (FS 431-02) 
recorded during analysis. A and B) from Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), 
Other Structure 2, (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative Nos. 
14052 and 14053). 



1070 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 9.26. Trough metate used in construction of partition wall in Room 
103 of Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389). (15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco 
Archive Negative No. 1 7953). 




Figure 9.27. Barely used trough metate (FS 434) that functioned as a slab 
cover— trough side up. From Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), Other 
Structure 6. (5 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 
14201). 



Metates 1071 



t 

j 

06 
■32 

i5 



<e 




a 




-C 


CO 


(/) 









Su 


> 









t> 


u 


> -o 




£ 




j2 




< 



{£ 



i£ 



5* 



S£ 



ft 






H 










* 


o 






<2 


2 




< 


u 


o 


lM 




Z 



5£ 



*£ 



i i i i _ i i 



ov 
© 



'I - 



'I - 



vo 
i i i >X 



00 ^ O P*> 

— — ci < vb 



i i <s ' ' O P*> t- 



' - ' 'IS 



(f] I I I H H I I I I I 



'I r- 



m oo «-> 

n pi * 



»o O; - 
00 f»J On 



pn <S wv. 

X) xj * 



oo oo 
— < tn 



'I 2 



o 


cn 


O 


po 


-H 


00 


On 


W) 


■-I 


tn 


i-l 


in 


o 


po 


o 


oo 


Ov 


- 


o 


m 


vv 


1 VO 


m 


* 


- 


- 


po 


pi 


(S 


<s 


- 


oo 


00 


' - 


<s 


« 



IS 



VO 



-h n ro 



o 


o 


i-i 


oo 


v> 


Ov 


•<r 


VO 


to 


VO 


VO 


r- 


o 
oo 


1 o 

vO 


VO 


oo 


vO 


On 
VO 




t- 


oo 


pi 


00 




■* 


1 oo 




oo 


PO 




On 

o 


VO 


vr, 


VO 









ON 








o 






m 


«rv 


oo 


Ov 


■* 


vo 


Ov 


r- 


fN 


vo 


<N 


ON 


<N 


PO 


(N 


c^ 


"<r 


~* 


VO 


<s 


r- 


>-H 


VO 


vO 



Ov O <H 
00 Ov Ov 

CI CI CI 



r- pn 
<s pn 

oo vo 



M (A M (O (0 ») 
Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov 
<S PS PS PS tN <S 



in w m io n i4 i4 

Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov 
P-l PS <N <S <N <S <S 



1072 Chaco Artifacts 



"8 
I 



00 



Is 
i3 












<!> 




-C 


-> 


en 


^ 


5 
o 



a 5 

S to 

O C 

s ° 



OB w 



> 


T5 


V) 


CO 


GO 




CD JD 


Oh 


< 



O • 



« 



00 



© <N VO 



_ t-- ,H 



- 'I 3 



m 



'I w 



r-' d 



i i i i i i 



'I - 



I I I 



i i i © o 



i i i i i i 



'| <N 



i i i i 



1 ci 



-I - 



00 


00 


>/■> 


en 


oo 


r- 


to 


<N 


' — < 


1 © 


t 


' oo 


i^ 


«n 



en wi vol en 



i i i ■ 



°5 ""! 

© © ■ • 



■ i i 



'I <s 





Ov 








o 
















m 


Vn, 


00 


ON 


TJ- 


VO 


on 


r- 


Ov 


o 




r- 


M 


04 


VO 


<s 


ON 


<s 


f» 


<N 


<s 


OO 


Ov 


ON 


C4 


co 


•* 


,-H 


VO 


<s 


r- 


"■* 


VO 


VO 


m 


1*1 


CO 


00 


NO 



c/jt/5(/)C/3l/jt/j</jt/ji/jc/jc/ji/jc/5 3 
ONONONONONONONONONONONOvON^ 



Metates 1073 



s 
5 

.8 



oo 



<2 



8.1 



U O 

u 



2 j> 
u.2: 



1° 



* 



K 



&S 



en © W «S t*» « l~» f <© »o oo *l «-< 

O CO <S -* -h © >« ■-< *o *l <s 

—i <S f»> Ov 



(-» 00 



(Sill 



I I I 



I I I 



I I I 



0\ 
i i © 



m oo wi 

© < 00 — < 



— ' o — 



en oo 
en ts 






■ i i i 



■ i i 



d 






i i i 



i i t 



d 



I *> 



'I - 



u + 

si 



i i i 



■I - 



'I <N 



I I I I 



I « 



I I I 



I - 



frj I I I l| (f) 



ON o 

c»v>oo©\'<»-»oo\r~-o\©-Hr~o 

tS»O<SOv<Sf0fSC-400O\O\<Sf»> 

ti- « vo <N r- — ' vo *o co co m oo \© „ 

C/)C/JCOC/)COC/5C/i{/ia){/5t/)l/)(/3 § 

escJcsrSdrJcscsrSfSrStstst- 1 



1074 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9.29. Disposition by site. 



Percentages 



Site No. 


Worn-out 


Killed 


Construction 


Not Obvious 


Broken 


Reused 


Number 


29SJ 629 


1.8 


- 


11.5 


5.3 


56.6 


24.9 


113 


29SJ 389 


0.3 


0.6 


10.0 


0.6 


63.5 


25.1 


351 


29SJ 390 


- 


33.3 


- 


- 


50.0 


16.7 


6 


29SJ 391 


- 


- 


25.0 


6.2 


43.7 


25.0 


16 


29SJ 827 


- 


- 


9.2 


9.2 


67.7 


13.8 


65 


29SJ 633 


- 


- 


2.3 


2.3 


70.4 


25.0 


44 



metates at sites 29SJ 629, 29SJ 389, and 29SJ 827 
(sites with a large sample size— Table 9.29) were 
reused in construction, in walls, firepits, mealing 
bins, post shims, etc. Approximately 25 percent of 
the metate fragments from each of the six sites (large 
and small sample sizes — Table 9.29) had been reused 
as other tools (see discussion above for details). 

Normally, only some of the pieces of the 
prehistorically broken metates were recovered. The 
exceptions were the two or three broken in half. 
Appendix B presents the results of the metate match 
study which was an effort to fit pieces of metates 
back together. In all but one case, the fragments 
locked together like the pieces of a puzzle. This was 
done to gain a better understanding of the number of 
individual metates at a site and to trace the divergent 
paths taken by the individual pieces following the 
metate's destruction. Approximately 10 percent of 
the total number of fragments from a site fit together. 
The reuse of the tools by both the site's inhabitants 
and those from other nearby sites rendered any 
attempt to determine a total number of metates as 
pointless; however, the detailed provenience 
recording system of the Chaco Project permitted 
tracing fragments through the site. As recorded in 
Appendix B, pieces of the same metate were 
recovered from a pithouse and a room, a kiva and a 
room, features within a room, and between rooms. 
Following all use and reuse of a metate, the pieces 
were entered into the archeological record. 

Conclusions 

As with any analytical undertaking, some 
propositions were clearly confirmed and others were 
less so; some of the recorded variables were less 
useful than others and several— such as encrustation 
or angle of the trough— were abandoned long before 
the analysis was complete. The assemblage was 



marked by a low number of whole metates and the 
lack of metates in their primary context. Metates 
were multifunctional tools, not only maize-grinding 
tools. Effort was put into their manufacture; random 
stones were not simply collected and used without 
modification. Manufacturing techniques included 
pecking, abrading, and flaking. The most readily 
available stone was not the most frequently used. 
When it could be observed, relatively few had been 
worn-out; their end came as a result of being broken 
for other uses. Most were broken prehistorically, 
with the pieces being recycled into other tools and 
architectural elements. Very few had kill holes. 

The Chaco Project recovered neither metates in 
mealing bins nor intact bins. No Utah-type metates, 
no decorated metates, no extraordinarily large or 
miniature metates, and no graded series of stones 
with differing degrees of coarseness or any other 
material than sandstone were found. 

It is clear that open-at-one-end trough metates 
were the grinding tool of overwhelming choice; 
trough metates open-at-both-ends and slab metates 
were statistically invisible. Many of the latter were 
recovered at the temporally latest sites or late 
reoccupations of earlier sites. 

It is also clear that the argument of increasing 
surface grinding area, and the presumed associated 
increase in grinding efficiency, must be reconsidered. 
There was not, in all areas of the Southwest, a 
uniform lineal progression through time from basin to 
trough to slab metates; nor is there necessarily a 
continuous increase in grinding surface area from 
trough to slab forms. The sequence is a useful 
heuristic device but strict adherence masks regional 
variability and hinders consideration of the underlying 
causes of the changes in the basic metate's shape. 
Multiple causal variables were undoubtedly involved, 



Metates 1075 



including the number of individuals participating in 
the procuring and manufacturing processes, the 
number of persons being provided for, and the 
characteristics of the material being ground. 

One of the propositions originally considered 
was that the change from trough to slab metates 
resulted from the introduction of different races of 
maize with differing characteristics, such as hardness 
of the kernels, the volume of material within each 
kernel, and perhaps, changes in the grinding process, 
such as soaking the kernels prior to grinding. Two 
very real problems prevented any definitive testing of 
the proposition. The first was the simple problem of 
the archeological record in Chaco Canyon. The 
continuous use, reuse, and changing use of the sites 
and portions of the sites precluded the recovery of 
relevant material in their primary contexts. In many 
cases, only portions of metates were recovered in 
secondary or even tertiary contexts. A related 
archeological issue was the general lack of 
preservation of maize and certainly a lack of 
sufficient quantities of maize from various temporal 
periods to make even inferential statements. 

The second problem is that the entire issue of 
identifying different races of maize is under 
investigation. The conventional wisdom has not been 
substantiated. The requisite DNA testing is only now 
being developed but may require unburned or 
uncharred kernels; therefore, it may be applicable 
only in a limited set of circumstances. 

It is also necessary to include environmental 
factors because they play a role in the development of 
kernel and cob size. Size is directly related to the 
volume of material produced per unit (cobs or 
kernels), and the volume required is related to the 
number of persons being fed. Until more accurate 
tests are devised and several relatively undisturbed 
sites are excavated, or the issue is examined on a 
pan-Southwestern basis, thereby increasing the 
sample sizes, the question of causality remains 
moot— at least for Chaco Canyon. Again, more than 
one cause was in effect, and the results from one 
Southwestern location may be less relevant for 
another. 

The portion of the study which considered the 
metate as a multifunctional tool produced more 
encouraging results. In addition to its primary 
purpose as a grinding platform, the open-at-one-end 



trough metates provided simultaneous multiple 
surfaces for battering, bashing, cutting, grinding, and 
pecking. Metates from all sites and all time periods 
were so used. Presumably, much of this additional 
use was expedient behavior because no unique use- 
wear was detected. For example, anvil wear or paint 
grinding occurred on metates; at the same time, 
however, tools specifically classified as only anvils 
or paint palettes occurred at the same sites. 

As the surrounding lateral and near-end shelves 
disappeared during the transition from trough to slab 
metate, this element of multi functionality was also 
lost because the majority of secondary and tertiary 
use occurred on the shelves. Secondary use was 
curtailed on open-at-two-end trough metates, not only 
due to the loss of the near-end shelf, but also due to 
the generally narrow lateral shelves which accompany 
this form. The open-at-both-ends (and slab) metates 
were manufactured on smaller stones and the lateral 
shelves were only a few centimeters wide; whereas, 
lateral shelves varying between 10 and 20 cm wide 
were common on the open-at-one-end form at sites in 
Chaco Canyon. 

Another use surface was lost when metates were 
permanently fixed in mealing bins and the bottom of 
the rock was no longer available. Contrary to 
conventional wisdom, trough metates were routinely 
used in mealing bins in all sites in Chaco Canyon; 
some were permanently fixed in place with adobe 
mortar and others were loose. One concomitant of 
permanently setting metates in place is that the stone 
can be smaller. Larger stones are needed for 
impermanently placed metates in order to absorb the 
force and motion resulting from the grinding. 
Smaller stones are easier for a single individual to 
handle, but if that smaller stone is used as a slab 
metate set permanently into a bin, the multifunctional 
aspect is generally lost, unless one wishes to damage 
the grinding surface. 

At some time, the metates ceased to be used in 
their primary capacity of grinding. They were 
broken up and the pieces were often recycled into 
other tools and uses. As most were neither worn-out 
nor killed, there is no clear basis for making 
statements concerning their treatment. It would seem 
that the efforts which went into their procurement, 
transport, and manufacture would guarantee their use 
until they broke during resharpening or a hole was 
worn through the bottom of the trough. But such 



1076 Chaco Artifacts 



was not the case. Their generally tabular form, 
regular shape, and parallel lines apparently made 
them attractive targets for expediently breaking them 
and using the pieces in other capacities. 

Concerning recycling as tools, fragments were 
found to have been reused as anvils, palettes, 
crushers, hammerstones, manos, active and passive 
abraders, drill bases, firedogs, and others. Frag- 
ments were also reused as architectural elements, 
including ashlars, in the main walls of rooms and 
kivas and later in walls used to subdivide a room, as 
a vent shaft collar and vent shaft ashlars, as post 
shims, components of mealing bins and wall niches, 
slab covers for pits, firepits, and as steps. 

This recycling occurred within and between 
sites. The within site movement of the pieces was 
tracked by the metate matching study which fit pieces 
back together. Pieces recovered from within a single 
provenience, such as a room, were matched, as were 
pieces between a room and a later kiva set into it, 
and from different rooms across the site. The 
between site recycling is inferential and based on the 
large number of metate fragments used in the wall 
construction at a temporally late site whose occupants 
scrounged metates from other abandoned nearby 
sites. 



Similar styles of metates were recovered from 
the small-house and greathouse sites. All metates 
were open-at-one-end but thin and thick; gray and tan 
forms with varying degrees of manufacturing effort 
were also ubiquituous. No single category of form or 
any other variable considered during the analysis was 
found exclusively at one site or at one category of 
site (e.g., at greathouses). The largest were 
recovered during other excavations at the greathouse 
sites of Pueblo Bonito and Una Vida. There were 
some differences in percentages in certain categories. 
For example, more thin metates with shelves wider 
than 10 cm and made from the hard gray sandstone 
were found at Pueblo Alto than at the small-house 
sites. This could be a result, however, of the closer 
proximity of Pueblo Alto to the source of the stone as 
it could be from any other factor. 

As curation costs increase and space decreases, 
metates are a likely candidate for disposal in the 
field. The results of this study suggest that a wealth 
of information can be ascertained from such a basic 
item as a metate if they are analyzed as a 
multifunctional tool. Their change in morphology is 
an interesting problem requiring considered analysis. 
Several causes were at work. Whether or not they 
will be determined depends in large part on the extent 
to which analysts keep an open mind and pursue the 
answers. 



Metates 1077 



Appendix 9A 



Review of Published Literature 



Chaco Canyon Sites 

All available literature (published and 
unpublished reports, notes, and photographs) was 
reviewed in order to determine the numbers and 
kinds of metates recovered during prior excavations 
in Chaco Canyon. Observations were recorded on 
metates left at excavated sites and elsewhere in the 
canyon. 

Shabik'eshchee Village Basketmaker III; 29SJ 1659 
(Roberts 1929) 

"The metates were all of the same general type 
and quite characteristic in form" (Roberts 1929:132). 
Fortunately, Roberts included a photograph and a 
brief discussion of metates in general; further, several 
of his observations are useful. One observation was 
that the stones were conveniently sized and shaped 
and could be used with little alteration. Except for 
the trough, they were unmodified; those illustrated 
bear witness. A number of them were worn-out and 
at least some were in the two trash mounds; however, 
he gave no actual numbers (nor did he indicate the 
total number of metates recovered). Reuse of 
metates (most of which were worn-out) consisted of 
incorporation into the slab linings of the excavated 
walls of the houses (House K and others); they were 
used in the construction of bins (House F-l) and one 
was perhaps a step in the antechamber of House F-l. 

As was usual for this time period, most of the 
metates were portable and were set up on several 
small stones when needed. There was one interesting 
exception, however. In House A, a metate was 
located in an oval depression in the floor (he did not 
indicate whether or not it was set in adobe). He 
suggested that the small depression next to the metate 
held the mano. House B had a similar, but empty, 
pit. Houses D and X had metates set up for use in 
the bins in the southern portion of the houses; those 
in House X had their respective manos with them. 

Half House Basketmaker III, Be 244, Be 273; 29SJ 
1657 (Adams 1951) 



This pithouse was exposed by Chaco Wash 
erosion and a portion of it was destroyed prior to 
excavation. It was dated between A.D. 700 and 740 
(Adams 1951:289). The most prominent stone 
artifacts on the floor were three open-at-one-end 
trough metates, one of which was in its position of 
use (supported by three small piles of slabs). The 
other two were propped against the wall of the house. 
There were also three manos and a hammerstone. 
Also recovered from the floor fill (or near floor fill) 
were four hammerstones, two manos, a trough metate 
fragment, and a grinding stone (Adams 1951:281- 
282). Based on the overall measurements of the 
rocks (the only ones given), these metates were 
somewhat smaller than those found by Roberts at 
Shabik'eshchee Village. 

The Three-C Site Early Pueblo II; Be 243; 29SJ 
625 (Vivian 1965) 

This site consisted of nine rooms, two kivas, 
and a trash midden. There were seven rooms and the 
kivas for living and two rooms for storage (Vivian 
1965:9, 16). A few minor artifacts were recovered, 
but the number in any one group was too small for 
comparative purposes (Vivian 1965:37). The metates 
were all shallow-trough, open-at-one-end, and made 
of sandstone. There were no mealing bins present 
and the metates were presumably entirely portable. 

Levit Kin Pueblo II-III; Be 26, 29SJ 750 (Dutton 
1938) 

Student excavators during the 1934 season were 
instructed to disregard such stone material as manos, 
metates, and hammerstones, of which large quantities 
had already been excavated (Dutton 1938:16). In 
fairness to Dutton, it should be pointed out that she 
did keep track of the number of such items from each 
major provenience. 

Manos and metates comprised a major portion 
of the stone material from this site, with hammer- 
stones also being very numerous. Significantly, all of 
the metates but six (two of which were from the 



1078 Chaco Artifacts 



surface) came from those levels and chambers 
constituting the unit of the pueblo last occupied 
(Dutton 1938:66-67). The second unit of the pueblo 
(the first period of long-term occupation) had neither 
metates nor mealing bins, which led Dutton to infer 
that there were no "industrial pursuits of a communal 
nature at Leyit Kin during this time. " This does not, 
however, preclude reuse of metates by the final 
occupants (Third unit, Mesa Verde affiliation) and 
casual comments throughout the report indicate that 
metates were reused (e.g., outside of Room 1, a final 
occupation room, a metate was incorporated into the 
construction of a slab-lined firepit). 

It is very difficult to determine if the final 
occupation had mealing bins— Dutton' s descriptions 
are nebulous. There may have been three: two in 
Room 2 and one in Room 4; however, none are in a 
"normal" position with respect to a wall for bracing 
one's feet. No slab metates were found in either of 
these two rooms. Of the five slab metates from this 
site, three were from Kiva B (as were a number of 
other categories of ground stone); unfortunately, 
there is no hint of their context. 

Dutton (1938:35) indicates that one slab metate 
had cornmeal on it. Judd (1954) thought that the 
cornmeal on metates reported by Pepper (1920) was 
actually ground white clay for plastering. As Dutton 
left this metate in the field, one can but wonder. 
White ground material was also reported at "Anna 
Shepard's Dig." 

There were 44 trough metates, five slab 
metates, and one metate was unclassifiable. There 
was a total of 162 manos and 67 hammerstones. 

TsehSo Pueblo I-III; Be 50; 29SJ 394 (Brand et al. 
1937) 

There were 84 fragments and whole metates 
recovered from both the Pueblo I and Pueblo II 
levels. These were a single type, the open-end 
trough or scoop metate, which is usual for these 
horizons. Those from the Pueblo I and Pueblo II 
period did not differ radically, although metates from 
the substructure were usually constructed from larger 
slabs than those of Pueblo II. Several had red paint, 
presumably ochre, ground in their troughs, and one 
had gypsum ground on it. There were twice as many 
manos as metates (Brand et al. 1937:90-91). 



Two manos and a trough metate were recovered 
during the 1939 excavation (Senter 1939:4, 8). 
Archival material lists a trough metate fragment from 
the west end of the refuse mound (Chaco Archive 
018B) and three uncatalogued metates, possibly from 
the 1937 season (Chaco Archive 195A). 

The 1949 stabilization report for Be 50 indicates 
that in Room 19 portions of four well-preserved 
mealing bins were exposed in the southeast corner. 
No further information was given. 

Be 50-51 Pueblo I-III; 29SJ 394 and 29SJ 395 
(Kluckhohn and Reiter 1939) 

Woodbury (in Kluckhohn and Reiter 1939:58- 
79) analyzed the ground stone artifacts (other than 
arrow-shaft smoothers) from Be 51 and noted that 22 
metates were recovered. There were none found in 
either bins or permanent positions; apparently they 
were all portable. When comparing Be 50 and Leyit 
Kin, there were relatively few metates at this site. 
There was no evidence of any use other than grinding 
of corn, except for the miniature (because it was too 
small to economically grind corn). The stones were 
only roughly shaped, and in some cases they were 
almost unworked (Kluckhohn and Reiter 1939:58-59). 

There were 19 trough metates: 14 were open- 
at-one-end; five were open-at-both-ends. There were 
three basin metates and one slab metate. (NOTE: 
This totals 23 metates.) 

Ninety-eight manos were recovered; this was 
four and one half times the number of metates (not 
seven times, as Woodbury says [Kluckhohn and 
Reiter 1939:59]). 

Archival material (Chaco Archive 195A) lists an 
uncatalogued metate from this site. 

The 1950 stabilization report (Vivian 1950) 
indicates that there were five slab-lined mealing bins 
in Room 47. 

Be 53 Ignorance Hollow; Judd's Pithouse 1; 29SJ 
396 (Field notes from the Summer Session 1940; 
Field Catalog for Be 53; Chaco Archive 262B) 

Ten rooms and several kivas were excavated. 
Combining the information from the above three 



Metates 1079 



sources resulted in the following tabulation 
(information was by room and level number; all 
metates were from the fill of rooms): 



Metates: 
Manos: 

Hammer st ones: 



3 whole; 10 fragments. 
21 whole; 12 fragments. 
6 



There is no way to assess the completeness of 
this list. 

Be 54 29SJ 1922 (Bullen 1941) 

Four rooms and three kivas were excavated; 
several rooms were outlined. Other rooms were 
present but not outlined. Twenty-five hammerstones, 
14 manos, and eight trough metates were found. 
Most (all?) of the metates were from the fill of Room 
2 and Kiva A. There were two classes of 
metates— thin and thick, with the latter being thicker 
than 2.5 in. and two of the former were 1 and 1.5 in. 
thick. One metate fragment had a rectangular box 
one-eighth in. deep pecked into the "upper surface" 
(near-end?), and the surface of the box was 
"reddened with powder" (Bullen 1941:28). 

Be 56 29SJ 753 (Excavated in 1941 by the University 
of New Mexico Field School; Chaco Archive 254 A) 

Eight rooms and the portion of a kiva which had 
not eroded away were excavated. Two metates were 
noted. One, a trough metate open-at-one-end, was 
found (apparently in position of use) on the floor of 
Room 5 and the other, a slab metate, was found on 
the floor of Room 8. 

There is no way to assess the completeness of 
this list. 

Be 58 29SJ 398 (Field catalog— excavated by the 
University of New Mexico Field School in 1947) 

Twelve rooms, two kivas, and a refuse area 
were investigated. The following were noted (all 
from Rooms 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 14, except for a 
mano and a mano fragment from Kiva A). Location 
within rooms was not clearly specified. 

Metates: 2 whole, 1 fragment, 1 minia- 

ture 
Manos: 5 whole, 8-10 fragments 

Hammerstones: 8 



There is no way to assess the completeness of 
this list. 

Be 59 Tom Mathews Dig; 29SJ 399 (Field Catalog 
from 1947 University of New Mexico Field School; 
Chaco Archive 2059) 

Thirteen rooms and three kivas were excavated, 
representing approximately two-thirds of the site; one 
additional kiva was noted in the unexcavated portion. 
The trash midden was sampled. The following were 
noted as having been found in the fill of the rooms 
(Rooms 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9): 

Metates: 1 fragment (plus several more) 

and 3 "milling stones" 
Manos: 9 fragments and 6 whole 

Hammerstones: 4 

There is no way to assess the completeness of 
this list. Four "stationary metate-basins" were in 
Room 7— a small irregular room considered to be a 
mealing room. The fact that they were said to be 10 
in. from the wall is curious. 

Be 193 Lizard House; 29SJ 1912 (Maxon 1963) 

This site consisted of 17 rooms and 3 kivas; it 
was constructed during two different periods with 
unrelated masonry and architectural patterns (Maxon 
1963:1-3). The following were noted: 

Metates: 1 fragment and 1 whole; both were 
trough open-at-both-ends. One was 
from the floor fill of Room 10 and 
the other from Room 12. 

Manos: 15 whole or fragments. 

There was a row of mealing bins in Room 10 
that had been partially dismantled "probably at 
abandonment." Maxon thought that abandonment 
was leisurely because most of the goods and timbers 
were taken from the site prehistorically (Maxon 
1963:30). There was no trash midden. 

Be 236 29SJ 589 (Bradley 1971) 

This site consisted of 10 rooms, one kiva, and 
an underlying pithouse. This site is unusual for 
Chaco Canyon because it has 16 slab metates, and 
this is almost as many as has been reported from all 
of the other excavated Chaco Canyon sites. Bradley 



1080 Chaco Artifacts 



noted that the first construction period was relatively 
late in the Chaco sequence (ca. A.D. 1150) and that 
it was reoccupied in the early A.D. 1200s. Three of 
the trough metates came from the lower floors, 
whereas, all but one of the slab metates came from 
the upper floors or the room fill. 

Metates: 4 trough and 16 slab (whole or 

fragments) 
Manos: 36 whole or fragments 

Hammerstones: 15 

In Rooms 8-9, two slab metates were set into 
shallow depressions in the floor and plastered into 
place; another was in a similar floor depression 
across the room from these two. In Room 9 a slab 
metate was plastered in a bin which had sandstone 
slab sides on the south and east and a 3 in. high rim 
of clay on the north side. On this same floor was a 
small trough metate that had apparently been propped 
up on two stones. There were several miniature 
trough and slab metates as well (the latter are 
probably abraders). 

Kin Kletso Pueblo III; Yellow House, 29SJ 393 
(Chaco Archive Field Notes; Vivian and Mathews 
1965) 

Kin Kletso, a late greathouse site on the canyon 
floor that presumably had a special function within 
the Chacoan organization had portions of 32 metates, 
of which 24 were fragments of trough metates. 
There were seven probable fragments of slab metates 
and one whole slab metate. All of the trough metates 
were open-at-one-end and were essentially all from 
the tabular sandstone lenses found in the canyon. 
The thickest was only 8.75 cm, and the majority 
were approximately 6 cm thick; some had shelves up 
to 15 cm wide. There were 43 whole or fragmentary 
manos and 37 hammerstones. 

There were no mealing bins; however, there 
were numerous trimmed sandstone slabs that could 
have come from roof or upper story bins. Vivian 
and Mathews (1965:92-93) note that 60 such slabs 
were recovered but that many were obviously from 
firepits. Seven trough metate fragments (29 percent 
of this type), 15 manos (35 percent), and 10 
hammerstones (27 percent) were from several layers 
in Room 5. This room was filled with refuse. Room 
44 had five of the seven probable slab metates (and 
five of the manos). The remainder of the metates 



were scattered in low numbers in nine other rooms. 

Pueblo del Arroyo Pueblo III; 29SJ 1947 (Judd 
1959) 

This is a classic Bonito Phase greathouse on the 
floor of the canyon approximately one-quarter mile 
from Pueblo Bonito which was partially excavated 
(50-60 percent) between 1923 and 1926. Of the 44 
metates and metate fragments recovered, one was 
recorded as being a slab metate. Eighteen were the 
thin, tabular sandstone, six were thicker sandstone, 
and the remainder were not discussed. Reuse of 
metates was incidentally noted and included: some 
were used as deflectors (Room 3 and Kiva B); one 
was used as an outside vent shaft cover for Room 3; 
several slightly used metates were utilized as door 
slabs in room 8B-I, and one was recovered from the 
fill of Kiva J. There was one that had been used as 
a metate on both the upper and lower surfaces; a 
similar metate was also recovered from Pueblo 
Bonito, as well as one each from 29SJ 423 and 29SJ 
299. Also recovered were 143 whole and fragmen- 
tary manos and 125 hammerstones (plus an unknown 
number of unrecorded ones [Judd 1959:135-136]). 

Judd (1959:136) took care to point out that at 
Pueblo Bonito only trough metates were recovered 
(by both Pepper and Judd) and that Woodbury (1954) 
and Bartlett (1933) misunderstood Pepper's 
terminology and incorrectly attributed the presence of 
slab metates to Pueblo Bonito. He thought that at 
both Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo del Arroyo, the 
thinner tabular trough metates belonged to the Pueblo 
II portion of the population, and the thicker ones 
belonged to the later inhabitants of these sites. 

Judd's single slab metate was located in a bin in 
one of the last portions of the site to be occupied. It 
should be noted, however, that its mano was 2.5 cm 
smaller than the surface, and clearly visible in Plate 
48 are rims (shelves) around the grinding surface. It 
looks like a trough metate to me. If the 
measurements for some of the troughs he gave are 
accurate, they were among the smallest trough 
metates to be recovered from Chaco Canyon. 

Pueblo Bonito 29SJ 387 (Pepper 1920) 

Pepper (1920:Table 3) listed 121 metates 
recovered by the Hyde Exploring Expedition's work 
in Pueblo Bonito; all were trough, open-at-one-end. 



Metates 1081 



(NOTE: There are some errors in this table; for 
instance, there are 32 manos and no metates listed for 
Room 72, but the actual totals according to the text 
are 12 manos and 20 metates.) Completely unique to 
Chaco Canyon was one metate that had a scroll 
design pecked into the shelf surrounding the trough, 
which was covered with red paint. The trough was 
large, with an area of 1,222 cm (Pepper 1920:90). 
The metates from Room 17 were interesting for 
several reasons. Based on the photograph (Pepper 
1920:78), it is obvious that they were quite large, 
were well-worn (or worn-out), and many of the 
troughs had undulations indicating the use of a new 
mano. There were multiple grinding troughs in a 
single rock, and worn-out metates were so placed as 
to "catch the material being ground" (Pepper 
1920:85). Pepper said that the room was covered 
with white cornmeal; however, Judd (1954:137-138 
footnote) disputes this and believes that the material 
was white sandstone that was being ground as a 
pigment. Given that Pepper indicates that the fill in 
this room was very shallow, I believe Judd's 
interpretation to be correct. Pepper found a 
concentration of white sandstone in Room 27 that was 
associated with a mortar and pestle and his workmen 
all agreed that this was where the ancients ground 
pigment for their dry paintings (i.e., sand paintings). 
Judd (1954) also thought that Room 17 and the next 
two or three to the south were for the preparation of 
clay used for pottery manufacture and other purposes. 
A pile of potter's clay and mullers lay at the south 
end of Room 212. In 1964, Judd simply noted that 
these metates were for pulverizing white sandstone 
for wall decoration (Judd 1964:175). A metate that 
had been used on both sides came from Room 10 
(Pepper 1920:58; see also Pueblo del Arroyo). 

An interesting situation was uncovered in Room 
72 where they found a "mass of metates" (Pepper 
1920:257). There were 20 metates, many of which 
were on edge, "as though they had been stored in this 
room. Some were finished and had been used. 
Others were in the course of construction, while 
some had merely been roughed into shape from 
sandstone slabs." There were 12 manos and four 
hammerstones. Apparently, this was the only such 
situation in Pueblo Bonito (and in the canyon) 
because Judd (1954) specifically noted that they did 
not find such a workshop. This is, however, very 
similar to the situation reported for the Salmon Ruin 
(see below); there, the existence of a specialized 
workshop was interpreted as evidence for supra- 



family organization within Chacoan society (Shelley 
1980:114). 

Metates were found in the roof-fall of upper 
story rooms (including Rooms 38 and 54). Reuse 
was indicated by metates being used for the sides of 
bins (e.g., Room 42); one was converted into a pestle 
for a mortar that was also found (Room 27); and in 
Room 84, a metate was used as the door sill for a 
north wall door. In two rooms (Room 20 and Room 
38) Pepper indicated that manos with several degrees 
of coarseness were found. (From his general 
descriptions and the illustrations, some of these could 
have been abraders, but there is no way to clarify the 
situation.) There were several interesting differential 
distributions of manos and metates — for example, in 
Room 71 there were two metates and 20 manos; 
Room 45 had one metate and 10 manos; Room 68 
had two metates and 39 manos, and Room 80 had 31 
manos and five metates. Pepper (1920:Table 3) 
listed 605 manos recovered. 

Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954) 

Of the 87 unbroken metates recovered, 53 were 
in rooms of the third and fourth type masonry, and 
80 percent of these were the thicker variety (that is at 
least 3 in. thick). Many were discarded, but others 
had fallen from the second story. Twenty-five 
metates were recovered from six Old Bonitian rooms, 
four of which were used as dumps; of these, 15 were 
thick, three were tabular, and seven were unknown. 
None were in their original position of use. No slab 
metates were recovered. 

Reuse of metates was noted in the slab linings 
of firepits and in the walls of storage bins; a perfectly 
good one was used as a door sill in Room 227; 
another was used to plug a hatchway to the room 
below; and a portion of one was used as a step for 
the east door of Old Bonitian Room 320. No metate 
with a scroll design or anything similar to that found 
by Pepper was located (Judd 1954:136). 

Most of the stones from which metates were 
made were a size that one person could carry; 
however, in the fill of Room 251 they found five 
trough metates, each of which weighed at least 150 
lbs. (68 kg)! Judd did not consider any of these to be 
as large as the two illustrated by Pepper (1920:84-85) 
as coming from Room 17. One metate I located 
from Una Vida, at the Mockingbird Canyon Dump in 



1082 Chaco Artifacts 



Chaco Canyon, weighed 105 lbs. or 48 kg; an 
unprovenienced one, also at the Mockingbird Canyon 
Dump, weighed 100 lbs. or 45.5 kg. 

From the rubble of rooms built above and over 
the eastern portion of Kiva Q, they recovered 23 
metates and fragments of both the thin and the thick 
varieties; all were worn-out. The thicker ones 
frequently had secondary channels cut into their 
grinding troughs by rubbing stones. 

Of the 436 manos recovered, 12 were taken to 
the U.S. National Museum; only two of the metates 
were taken to the National Museum. Most of the 
metates from Pueblo Bonito and Una Vida are 
currently in the Mockingbird Canyon Dump in Chaco 
Canyon, while others are scattered around the sites, 
the canyon, and the visitor's center. 

Both Judd (1954:138-139, Plate 26) and Pepper 
(1920:59-60) each found one interesting metate-like 
artifact, and each investigator considered it to be for 
ceremonial purposes (e.g., grinding together 
cornmeal and bits of shell and turquoise). The two 
metate-like artifacts are remarkably similar to each 
other, and even their grinding surfaces are similar. 
Judd was certain that this was a local type because he 
found fragments of several others during the 
excavations (how many and where is not indicated). 
He noted that it was similar to the Utah-type metates 
that had a rectangular depression ground into the 
near-end, presumably to serve as a mano rest. It is 
difficult to analyze artifacts from a photograph; 
however, I do not believe that these are similar to 
Utah-type metates because the rectangular box 
appears to be ground into the far-end of the metate 
and not the near-end. The wear of the trough clearly 
comes up to the top of the stone at the end opposite 
the box; on any other metate, it does this only at the 
near-end. Therefore, the box, rather than being used 
as either a mano rest or to hold the material to the 
ground, is placed at the far-end to receive what was 
being ground. They are both undoubtedly correct in 
ascribing an essentally ceremonial function to this 
form of metate; however, it is nothing at all like a 
Utah-type metate. 

The above-noted ceremonial metates clearly had 
a great deal of energy invested in their construction. 
For the normal metates, Judd (1954:135) noted that 
some were unshaped and others were extensively 
modified. 



Chacoan Outliers 

Aztec Ruin (Morris 1928) 

This site was heavily reoccupied by Anasazi 
with Mesa Verde affiliations and there was little in 
situ Chacoan material; there was some Chacoan 
trash. The effect of this reoccupation was to obscure 
many aspects of the Chacoans and presumably, the 
majority of the metates and mealing bins that were 
recovered were representative of the latter 
reoccupation. Morris recognized three types of 
metates: one type was a thin, rectangular, and trough 
open-at-one-end metate made of a rather fine-grained 
greenish sandstone; the nearest outcrop of this 
material was several miles from the site. They 
generally had a near end of 3 to 4 in. (7.62 to 10.16 
cm), and the stone was not worked except for 
blocking it out. The other two types were made on 
large river boulders and were distinguished by being 
either trough or slab metates (Morris 1928:29-30). 

Morris excavated a number of small sites 
(villages) surrounding the greathouse; he called this 
aggregate of sites, "The Annex," and distinguished 
the individual sites by building numbers. These were 
apparently mostly (all?) Mesa Verde construction. 
There were three mealing bins with upright slab walls 
(several metates were used as the slabs for one of the 
bins) in one of the rooms of Building 2. Morris 
(1928:235) used the term, "grist basin," for the slab- 
lined receptacle (for the ground meal) that was dug 
into the floor at the far end of the metate. Two of 
the three metates were present and both were slabs. 
This prompted a footnote by Morris (1928:236) 
saying that, "I have never seen a trough metate 
enclosed in a bin. " While generally the case in some 
Southwestern locations, this is not true in Chaco 
Canyon, as noted by Judd (1954) and the Chaco 
Project. Morris recovered 1 1 metates of all types 
from four of the seven or eight buildings of the 
Annex. There was one additional single mealing bin. 

From the greathouse of Aztec Ruin, Morris 
recovered 100 whole and fragmentary metates of all 
types and noted the impressions of 13 more in the 
adobe of several mealing bins. Most metates were 
recovered from refuse layers of roof-fall. Some were 
in situ in mealing bins, including a single example 
with a grist trough dug into a second-story floor 
(Room 128). Others were in the roof/ floor- fall of 
both second and third stories (e.g., Rooms 95, 103, 



Metates 1083 



196, 152, 191). The third-story room above Room 
136 was particularly interesting because of the variety 
and quantity of stone artifacts, along with some 
pottery and perishable material, which were stored 
(or "cached") in it. Included were 12 metates. The 
three mealing rooms recovered or identified were all 
second-story rooms, and perhaps the one in Room 
12 1 2 was a Chacoan mealing room. Morris noted 
that several metates were used for grinding paint, one 
was used as a step, one to cover a pit, and a few 
were used in wall construction. 

Salmon Ruin (Shelley 1980) 

This site was similar to Aztec in that it was 
originally a Chacoan outlier that was intensively 
reoccupied by Mesa Verdeans (the Secondary 
Occupation). Fortunately, the excavation at Salmon 
was a recent undertaking and the problem of relating 
material culture to its makers was seriously 
addressed. Of the 133 whole and identifiable metates 
(out of a total of 156?), 100 were assigned to a 
distinct cultural period (Table 9A.1). Thirty-two 
trough metates and 10 slab metates belonged to the 
Chacoan occupation, whereas, during the Secondary 
and Secondary /Mixed occupations, there were 10 
trough and 37 slab metates and 13 trough and 42 slab 
metates, respectively. 

The Chacoans clearly favored trough metates 
and the Mesa Verdeans favored slab metates; this 
difference is attributed to the Chacoan 's reliance on 
flint corn and the Secondary people's higher 
percentage of flour corn in their diet. Flour com is 
easier to crush, therefore, easier to keep in the 
confines of the grinding surface; the walls of the 



trough metate no longer are necessary and their 
function is replaced by the confines of the mealing 
bin (Shelley 1980:107-114). 

This indicates that at the Salmon site and in 
Chaco Canyon proper, the spread of slab metates was 
not the result of diffusion but rather was an 
association between differing cultural affiliations that 
had varying percentages of easier-to-grind corn in 
their diet. 

There is a difference between the Chacoans of 
Salmon and the Chacoans of Chaco Canyon in the 
frequency of trough versus slab metates. At no site 
in the canyon, except for the late and presumably 
Mesa Verde affiliated sites, such as 29SJ 589, is the 
percentage of slab metates even 1 percent. If the 
degree of hardness of the corn being ground is a 
causal factor in the overall morphology of the metate, 
then the Chacoans of the canyon were clearly 
grinding hard corn— either flint com or com hardened 
from storage. 

One Room (Room 84W) appeared to have been 
for the manufacture and maintenance of metates. 
Seventeen were found, including a "blank," which 
had a trough in the initial stages of being formed and 
one which was broken transversely during the process 
of sharpening the trough. In addition to the metates, 
43 hammerstones (20 percent of the total) were 
recovered from this room (Shelley 1980:113-114). 
This collection of artifacts and metates in various 
stages of manufacture is similar to the situation in 
Room 72 at Pueblo Bonito, where Pepper excavated 
and found 20 metates ranging from those being 
initially manufactured to used ones. 



Table 9A.1 . Metates from Salmon Ruin. 1 



Percentages 



Period 


Dates (A.D) 


Trough 


Slab 


Unknown 


Total 


Undifferentiated 


1088-1263 


32 


62 


5 


N=133 


"Primary" 


1088-1116 


75 


22 


3 


N= 43 


Intermediate 


??? 


22 


78 


- 


N= 9 


Secondary 


1185-1263 


21 


77 


2 


N= 48 


Secondary and Mixed 


777 


23 


75 


2 


N= 56 



Data taken from Shelley (1980). 



1084 Chaco Artifacts 



Escalante Site Nemetz (1977) 

This site is considered to be a Chacoan outlier 
with a number of architectural traits similar to "the 
McElmo Phase" structures in Chaco Canyon. Seven 
rooms and a kiva were excavated; of the 18 metates 
recovered, 12 were complete. Two were basin 
metate fragments incorporated into walls, and one 
trough metate fragment was recovered. The 
remaining 14 were slab metates (Nemetz 1977:196- 
199). In her conclusions, Nemetz considers the 
relationship between Escalante and the Chacoan site 
of Kin Kletso (supposedly McElmo Phase) and 
emphasizes architecture, ceramics, and metates. 
With respect to the metates, she concludes that the 
two sites indicate differences that would not be 
expected if they belonged to a single phase (Kin 
Kletso had trough metates); however, if one considers 
the functional aspect of metates in relation to the corn 
being ground, we would expect the softer flour corn 
to have predominated at Escalante. Unfortunately, 
there was only one cob recovered; as expected it was 
an eight-rowed cob. Her emphasis on trait similarity 
between ecologically differing areas is unwarranted 
and her questioning of the possible affiliation between 
the two sites is an example of the problems that can 
result from the trait approach to archeology; the 
emphasis of the argument should be on adaptation 
and process, not on shared mental templates. 

Dominguez and Escalante Ruins (Reed et al. 1979) 

The Dominguez Ruin is a Mesa Verde site that 
is located 150 m from the Chacoan outlier of 
Escalante. It is a small village site that was 
contemporary with Escalante, but was unusual 
because one or two high-status burials were found in 
several of the rooms. The excavator of the site 
(Reed) believed that they were associated with 
Escalante rather than Dominguez. The site consisted 
of four rooms and a small kiva, in which four slab 
metates were recovered. They had been generally 
shaped by unifacial spalling and pecking (Reed 
1979:76-77). 

Guadalupe Ruin (Pippin 1979) 

Unlike Salmon, Aztec, and Escalante, which 
were outliers to the north of the canyon, Guadalupe 
was an outlier to the south; like the others, it was 
intensively reoccupied by Mesa Verde affiliated 
Anasazi. The total number of metates recovered is 



unknown; however, the pattern is similar to that of 
Salmon, in that trough metates were associated with 
the Chacoan occupation. Pippin gave a breakdown of 
the whole metates: eight slab, two open-ended 
trough, two miniature trough, and one basin. 
(NOTE: The one open-ended trough metate 
illustrated [Pippin 1979:Figure 28d] is clearly not 
open at both ends but is open-at-one-end with a near- 
end of at least 3 cm.) Of the classifiable fragments, 
76 percent were trough and 14 percent were slab. 
Pippin attributed the preponderance of trough metates 
to their occurrence in post-occupational fill, trash, 
and roof strata because they were reused in wall 
construction by the secondary occupants. The 
distribution of the whole metates indicated that they 
were used on roofs, and two were found on or 
directly above floors. A pollen sample from inside 
of a slab-lined mealing bin was composed of 80 
percent Chenopodiineae, with Roseae and Zea 
comprising the remainder. A secondary mealing bin 
had both Roseae and Zea pollen, while a sample from 
a secondary slab metate had 39 percent grass pollen. 
A sample from a mano had an equally high 
percentage of grass and 45 percent Zea (Pippin 
1979:185-191, 264-265). 

Village of the Great Kiva* (Roberts 1932) 

No mealing bins were found in any of the 
rooms in the original roomblock; the appearance of 
mealing bins was definitely associated with the 
appearance of slab metates, and this was about the 
time that the population of the community was 
"augmented by an appreciable number of people" 
(Roberts 1932:33, 140). Trough metates of 
sandstone and basalt were associated exclusively with 
the original rooms and only slab metates, also of 
sandstone and basalt, were associated with the latter 
periods. Room 49 had a mealing bin for two 
metates, and Room 23 had a set for three metates, 
which were graded in degrees of coarseness. Both of 
these rooms were adjacent to rectangular rooms with 
kivalike features. Room 57 had a mealing bin for 
three metates and an empty adjacent fourth bin that 
may have been for storage; each compartment was 
formed by upright slabs (Roberts 1932:33, 37, 39, 
44, 140). (NOTE: This is one of the very few 
references to a graded series of metates from the 
Chacoan area. It was associated with a later building 
phase but may have been contemporary with a great 
kiva. Roberts [1932] reported a series of manos 
graded from fine to coarse. He also noted that 



Metates 1085 



although metates were both basalt and sandstone, 
most were lava because there was an outcrop only a 
few miles from the site, whereas the sandstone had to 
be carried from a much greater distance.) 

The Mesa Verde Area 

Site 499 Early Pueblo m (A.D. 1100 to 1150) (Lister 
1964) 

This site included 12 ground floor rooms (there 
were possibly 15 to 18 overall), two kivas, and a 
tower. Two rooms each had two mealing bins; one 
of these (Room 12) was too small for habitation and 
perhaps functioned only as a mealing area (Lister 
1964:20, 45). Of the 17 whole or fragmentary 
metates recovered, 15 were slab metates and the 
other two were trough metates or fragments. All 
were recovered from room or kiva fill, except one of 
the trough metates which was on the surface. Seven 
were from the lower floor of Room 10 and four were 
from Kiva B. None were recovered from the trash 
midden. 

Big Juniper House Pueblo Il-Pueblo III (Swannack 
1969) 

Twenty rooms, or areas numbered as rooms, 
and three kivas were completely excavated. Eleven 
additional rooms or areas were outlined; the South 
Trash Mound was almost completely excavated and 
the shallow East Trash Mound was only trenched. 
Swannack noted three types of metates: 1) 
trough— open-at-both-ends, 2) slab, and 3) 
slab/trough, which was being described for the first 
time. Unfortunately, Swannack is another of the 
investigators who labels metates with a very narrow 
near-end (several centimeters or less) "open-at-two- 
ends," but this is not the case. Of the five supposed 
open-at-two-end metates he illustrated (Swannack 
1969:109, Figure 97a-e), at least three (Figure 97c-e 
and perhaps Figure 97b) are closed-at-one-end with 
a narrow shelf. This leaves one or two true open-at- 
both-end metates in this figure. Swannack notes that 
this was the most common type and that there were 
five complete and 24 fragments; however, we do not 
know the actual distribution of the two metate types 
at this site because of the merging of two types into 
one. This is unfortunate because there appears to 
have been a morphological transition recorded in the 
archeological record of the site. 



Most of this type were made of locally available 
fine-grain sandstone; one was coarse sandstone. 
Three had "localized concave grinding surfaces on 
the back" and may have served as "unspecialized 
milling stones. " Shaping of the stone was rough — 
bifacial spalling followed by pecking — and the backs 
were frequently ground to remove irregularities. 
Swannack considered one to be unusually well 
finished (Figure 97a); however, by Chaco Canyon 
standards, this one would only be average. 

Of the five slab metates recovered, three were 
whole. Two were volcanic breccia and the rest were 
sandstone. The edges were spalled or bifacially 
flaked and one was ground on the back. There were 
three whole metates and three fragments of the third 
type. Swannack (1969:115) notes that perhaps these 
were trough metates that had one of the lateral 
shelves knocked off and were then used as slab 
metates. 

Room 1 1 was a workroom for grinding corn; it 
had several mealing bins that were missing their 
metates but did have supports for them. Of the 40 
metates listed (Swannack 1969: Table 9), 38 were 
from test trenches, rooms, or kivas and only two 
were from the trash mound (Swannack 1969:110- 
115). Reuse was noted in the construction of several 
bins and in a room wall. Finally, a number of 
illustrated "unspecialized milling stones" (Swannack 
1969:120-121) are abraders, and while they were 
used for grinding it probably was not for foodstuffs. 

Long House Late Pueblo III (A.D. 1200 to 1290s) 
(Cattanach 1980) 

This site consisted of approximately 150 rooms, 
21 kivas, and a plaza area. There was also a 
Basketmaker III pithouse and indications of 
occupations during Pueblo I and Pueblo II. Of the 96 
complete, fragmentary, or blank metates recovered, 
90 were slab metates, and six were trough. The slab 
metates consisted of 87 used on one side and three 
with two grinding surfaces. Three of the remaining 
six were trough metates that had been remodeled into 
slab metates by removing the shelves and three were 
trough metates. Eight of the 82 complete or 
fragmentary metates that had been used were 
recovered from the trash mound slope, and of these 
82, 77 (94 percent) were fine-grained sandstone, 
three were conglomerate, one was fossiliferous shale, 



1086 Chaco Artifacts 



and one was blocky micaceous basalt (Cattanach 
1980:261-264). The mealing bins were often poorly 
preserved and few measurements could be taken. 
Four were in each of Rooms 9, 1, 21, and 52. Three 
were in Room 56, and Room 3 had from one to 
three. Metates were found in kivas and rooms other 
than these six, occasionally embedded in the floor, 
but no other bins were located. 

Badger House Intermittent occupation during Pueblo 
II and Pueblo III (Hayes and Lancaster 1975) 

The metate data is summarized for Badger 
House and its surrounding community; while specific 
data are provided for each individual provenience, it 
would not be productive to compile the detailed 
measurements for this overview. Therefore, the 
following comments and observations are offered. A 
total of 220 whole and fragmentary metates were 
recovered; 48 were nearly complete. There were 
only 13 whole or fragmentary slab metates and these 
were all from Badger House proper; however, given 
the context of these and the trough metates, Hayes 
felt that the conversion to slabs began in Late Pueblo 
II and was completed by Late Pueblo III. 
Unfortunately, Hayes (like Swannack 1969:17) 
considered trough metates with a narrow near-end 
shelf to be open-at-both-ends, but as noted, this is not 
accurate. The two illustrated are clearly closed-at- 
one-end (Hayes and Lancaster 1975:151, Figures 189 
and 190). Hayes characterized nine trough metates 
as being open-at-both-ends; however, because of this 
mixing of the terminology, we are uncertain of the 
number. This is unfortunate because the 

archeological sequence of this site spanned the 
transition of types. The slab metate illustrated 
(Hayes and Lancaster 1975:152, Figure 191) is a 
good example of what the surface should look like. 
The surface illustrated (Hayes and Lancaster 
1975:151, Figure 190b) is not that of a slab metate, 
as the caption indicates. This surface is the backside 
of a trough metate and was used as an abrader, 
probably during the metate use-life (i.e., this was a 
multifunctional tool and not a sequentially used 
single-function tool as indicated). 

Energy investment in the preparation of the 
stone ranged from none to fully dressed by pecking 
and grinding on all surfaces. The amount of use 
varied from essentially unused (a trough depth of 0. 1 
cm) to worn-out. About one-tenth of the total 
number of metates with a wide near-end had a 



depression for the mano in it and resembled the 
typical Utah-type metate. There was a progressive 
reduction in the overall size of the stone, but the 
length of the grinding surface remained essentially the 
same, as did the average grinding surface area (744 
cm 2 for the closed-at-one-end metates with a wide 
shelf, as compared to 733 cm 2 for the slabs) (Hayes 
and Lancaster 1975:152). 

Details of the archeological context were given 
in the individual proveniences. Casual perusal 
indicates that they were reused in construction, to 
block a door, as manos, and other things. Several 
large metates were noted, including one which 
weighed 59 lbs. and one which weighed 98 lbs! 
Several were found on the floor in the position of 
use; two were propped up on small sandstone rocks, 
and two were plastered into the floor with adobe. 
One unusual aspect of the distribution of metates is 
that 24 (11 percent) were recovered from the trash 
mound at Badger House. This is the highest percen- 
tage of any of the sites reviewed for this report. 

Mug House Pueblo HI (Rohn 1971) 

This multicomponent site consisted of 90 
domestic rooms and eight kivas; 45 of the rooms 
were considered to be dwelling rooms, 40 were for 
storage, and two were designated as sleeping rooms. 
There was an especially tight cluster of tree-ring 
dates between A.D. 1063 and 1076, which probably 
represents construction and occupation of Component 
A. Components B and C dated between A.D. 1100 
and 1260 (Rohn 1971:19, 24). Of the 105 whole and 
fragmentary metates recovered, 104 were slab 
metates which Rohn subdivided into two styles based 
on their thickness. Eighty were thin and 24 were 
blocklike; 85 percent of the thin metates were made 
of local Mesaverde sandstone, whereas 75 percent of 
the blocky ones were made of material that had to be 
imported. This material was coarser than the local 
sandstone. There were indications of 18 mealing 
bins, but none contained metates. A single fragment 
of a trough metate was found in previously disturbed 
fill. Six complete and one fragmentary metate blank 
were found (Rohn 1971:201-203). Forty-five of the 
dwelling rooms, 40 of the storage rooms, and two 
sleeping rooms contained metates. 

In addition to 492 manos and 28 blanks, 411 
whole hammers tones were found, including a 
concentration of 25 in the fill of Room 29/1— where 



six mealing bins were located. Twelve manos were 
also found in this room (Rohn 1971:203, 206, 211). 

The Mogollon Region 

Grasshopper Pueblo Pueblo IV 

There exists no comprehensive treatment of this 



Metates 1087 



site or its artifacts; however, the majority of the 
metates recovered were slab metates (J. Jefferson 
Reid, personal communication 1981). Ciolik- 
Torrello's dissertation (1978:112) noted that there 
were 30 mealing bins, 86 slab metates, 20 other 
metates, SOS whole and fragmentary manos, 198 
hammerstones, and 87 axes on 67 late abandoned 
floors. 



1088 Chaco Artifacts 



Appendix 9B 
Metate Matches 



During the metate analysis an attempt was made 
to fit broken pieces together. This was undertaken 
for several reasons; they include acquiring complete 
measurements for at least one dimension, reducing 
the number of individual fragments in order to arrive 
at a more accurate estimate of the total number of 
metates from a given site or provenience, and adding 
to the overall assessment of provenience contem- 
poranity. The latter is based on the assumption that 
the pieces resulting from a metate being broken up 
for reuse, in other contexts than grinding, would be 
reused at about the same time. Although this would 
not be the case in every situation, in the absence of 
tightly refined chronometric dating, it is better than 
nothing. In Chaco Canyon this reuse was usually 
construction — either new or remodeling of existing 
features or structures. 

A match occurred when two or more separate 
fragments were fitted or joined back together. 
Although most pieces locked together tightly, if one 
of the pieces has been ground (either actively or 
passively) on the common edge, the fit was less than 
tight. In one case from Pueblo Alto, an intermediate 
piece was missing; however, there was no doubt of 
their common origin due to the similarities in all 
other variables, including the almost crystalline 
structure of that particular piece of sandstone. 
During the analysis, the pieces from a site were 
spread out and examined for similarities suggestive of 
a common origin. Such variables as color, shape, 



thickness, and style were particularly useful clues. 
Color could be deceiving as some pieces were black 
or red from reuse in firepits. Intrasite matches were 
not attempted, although the sites within Marcia's 
Rincon (29SJ 627, 29SJ 628, 29SJ 629, and 29SJ 
633) offer an interesting cluster for such an 
undertaking. Pieces from a single metate were 
frequently recovered from different proveniences such 
as several features within a room, different rooms, or 
a room and a kiva. One metate from Pueblo Alto 
was broken in half and used in the construction of 
two rooms separated by approximately 50 meters. 

As noted in the chapter introduction, several 
archeologists proposed using metates as barometers of 
social conditions— such as the degree of dependence 
on agriculture — especially if the survey being 
recorded was regional in scope. Implicit in this 
suggestion is the idea that each fragment represents 
an individual metate. This is not the case, as the 
results of the metate matching study indicate that 
from 10 to 18 percent of the fragments can be 
reunited. This decreases the total number 
represented. If someone is interested in the number 
at a site, it is more accurate to record the minimum 
number of individuals (e.g., the far right end or the 
near shelf) as is common in faunal analysis. 

Table 9B.1 is a list of metates matched during 
this study. Several metate matches are illustrated in 
Figures 9B.1-9B.6. 



Table 9B. 1 . (continued) 



Metates 1089 



Site 



Field Specimen 
No- 



Provenience 



Comments 



5345 
5453 



1647 
5683 



949 
950 



921 
972 



433-01 
434 



120 



Kiva 15, Test Pit 4, 
Kiva 15, South Wall 



Layer 6 



Wall construction, base of wall 



Room 110, North Wall, Wall Niche 16 
Room 110, Floor 1, Mealing Bin No. 3 



Used to plug opening of niche 

Construction of kneeling area for Bin 3 . (Note: do 

not physically connect but definitely from same 

metate) 



6329 


Room 147, Floor 1, Firepit 1 




6 fragments representing approx. 2/3 of a single 
metate used in firepit construction 


900-04 


Plaza Feature 1, 


TT 1 




2 pieces from right side and far end; bottom of stone 
continuously rounded and required plastering in bin 
or wedged with rocks for use. 


900-03 


Plaza Feature 1, 


TT 1 




3 pieces making up 2/3 of a metate 


874 
882 


Plaza Feature 1, 
Plaza Feature 1 , 


Room 4, TT 1 , 
Room 4, TT 3, 


Layer 2 
Layer 2 


Maximum thickness of stone is only 2.5 cm! 


917 
921 


Plaza Feature 1, 
Plaza Feature 1, 


Room 3, TP 3, 
Room 3, TP 4, 


Layer 2 
Layer 4 


After breaking up the metate, FS 921 used as a 
passive abrader. Both pieces were burned. 


922 


Plaza Feature 1, 


Room 3, TP5, 


Layer 2 


2 pieces 



Plaza Feature 1, Room 3, 

3 

Plaza Feature 1, Room 3, 

4 



Grid 20, Layer 
Grid 20, Layer 



2 pieces 



Plaza Feature 1, Room 3, TP 4, Layer 3 

Plaza Feature 1, Room 3, Floor 1, Fl. 
Artifact 5 



Following metate breaking, FS 921 used as a passive 

abrader; then broken into 2 pieces. 

FS 972 not used following metate breaking. 



463-03 


Other Structure 7 - North of Room 209 


Wall clearing. After metate broken up, trough 
pecked w/hammerstone, flaked along entire length, 
used as paint palette for hematite. 


566 


South of Kiva 8 


Wall clearing. FS463-03 & 566 in construction of 
2 separate kiva/room blocks approx. 18 m apart. 


433-08 


Other Structure 6 


2 pieces from wall clearing 


433-09 


Other Structure 6 


2 pieces from wall clearing 



Other Structure 6 
Other Structure 6 



2 pieces from wall clearing 

1 piece from wall clearing 

Metate weighed over 150 pounds!; worn-out or 

killed; trough used as a passive abrader. 



4001 


Plaza Wall 1 (east of Kiva 10) 


2 pieces from wall clearing 


4165 


Plaza Grid 35 


2 pieces from west 1/4 of PG 35, Layer 2 


5076 
6766 


Plaza Grid 117, TT 3, Layer 1, Level 2 
Room 143, TT 6, Layer 1 


Debris from wall-fall, Room 3, Plaza Feature 1 . 
Wall-fall. FS 5076 & 6766 room construction 
approx. 50 m apart 


4291 


Plaza 1 


2 pieces from wall clearing, north of Rooms 198 and 
200; Layer 2 



Circular Structure 1 



2 pieces from wall clearing 



29SJ 390 



022 



Wall clearing 



Wall-fall 



29SJ 827 



Unknown 



Unknown 



Site excavated by Voll in 1960s? Of the 97 metate 
fragments left at the site, 12 were matched into 6 
pairs representing from 10% to 100% of a complete 
metate. 



1090 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9B. 1 . (continued) 



Site 



Field Specimen 

No. Provenience 



Comments 



5345 
5453 



1647 
5683 



949 
950 



921 
972 



433-01 
434 



120 



Kiva 15, Test Pit 4, Layer 6 
Kiva 15. South Wall 



Wall construction, base of wall 



Room 110, North Wall, Wall Niche 16 
Room 110, Floor 1, Mealing Bin No. 3 



Used to plug opening of niche 

Construction of kneeling area for Bin 3. (Note: do 

not physically connect but definitely from same 

metate) 



6329 


Room 147, Floor 1, Firepit 1 




6 fragments representing approx. 2/3 of a single 
metate used in firepit construction 


900-04 


Plaza Feature 1, TT 1 




2 pieces from right side and far end; bottom of stone 
continuously rounded and required plastering in bin 
or wedged with rocks for use. 


900-03 


Plaza Feature 1 , TT 1 




3 pieces making up 2/3 of a metate 


874 
882 


Plaza Feature 1 , Room 4, TT 1 , 
Plaza Feature 1, Room 4, TT 3, 


Layer 2 
Layer 2 


Maximum thickness of stone is only 2.5 cm! 


917 

921 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 3, TP 3, 
Plaza Feature 1 . Room 3, TP 4, 


Layer 2 
Layer 4 


After breaking up the metate, FS 921 used as a 
passive abrader. Both pieces were burned. 


922 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 3, TP 5, 


Layer 2 


2 pieces 



Plaza Feature 1 , Room 3 , 

3 

Plaza Feature 1 , Room 3 , 

4 



Grid 20, Layer 
Grid 20, Layer 



2 pieces 



Plaza Feature 1, Room 3, TP 4, Layer 3 

Plaza Feature 1, Room 3, Floor 1, Fl. 
Artifact 5 



Following metate breaking, FS 921 used as a passive 

abrader; then broken into 2 pieces. 

FS 972 not used following metate breaking. 



463-03 


Other Structure 7 - North of Room 209 


Wall clearing. After metate broken up, trough 
pecked w/hammerstone, flaked along entire length, 
used as paint palette for hematite. 


566 


South of Kiva 8 


Wall clearing. FS463-03 & 566 in construction of 
2 separate kiva/room blocks approx. 18 m apart. 


433-08 


Other Structure 6 


2 pieces from wall clearing 


433-09 


Other Structure 6 


2 pieces from wall clearing 



Other Structure 6 
Other Structure 6 



2 pieces from wall clearing 

1 piece from wall clearing 

Metate weighed over 150 pounds!; worn-out or 

killed; trough used as a passive abrader. 



4001 


Plaza Wall 1 (east of Kiva 10) 


2 pieces from wall clearing 


4165 


Plaza Grid 35 


2 pieces from west 1/4 of PG 35, Layer 2 


5076 
6766 


Plaza Grid 117, TT 3, Layer 1, Level 2 
Room 143, TT 6, Layer 1 


Debris from wall-fall, Room 3, Plaza Feature 1. 
Wall-fall. FS 5076 & 6766 room construction 
approx. 50 m apart 


4291 


Plaza 1 


2 pieces from wall clearing, north of Rooms 198 and 
200; Layer 2 



Circular Structure 1 



2 pieces from wall clearing 



29SJ 390 



022 



Wall clearing 



Wall-fall 



29SJ 827 



Unknown 



Unknown 



Site excavated by Voll in 1960s? Of the 97 metate 
fragments left at the site, 12 were matched into 6 
pairs representing from 10% to 100% of a complete 
metate. 



Metates 1091 




Figure 9B. 1. Three metate fragments (FS 1158-2, 1158-5, and 1138-4) 
from Room 103 at Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389). (5 cm scale) 
(NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 14036.) 




Figure 9B.2. Reconstructed metate (FS 1624, FS 5460, FS 5455, FS 5456, 
and FS 1624) from Room 110 and Kiva 15 at Pueblo Alto (29SJ 
389). (15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 23635.) 



1092 Chaco Artifacts 




Figure 9B.3. Two metate fragments recovered from the south wall 
construction and fill of Kiva 15 at Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389). 
FS 5345 on left; FS 5453 on right. (15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco 
Archive Negative No. 23634.) 




Figure 9B.4. Six metate fragments (FS 6329) recovered from Firepit 1, 
Floor 1, Room 147 at Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389). (15 cm scale) 
(NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 23616.) 



Metates 1093 




Figure 9B.5. Two metate fragments from wall clearing south of 
Kiva 8 at Pueblo Alto (29SJ 289). FS 463-03 and 
FS 566 were found in construction material from two 
separate kiva/roomblocks located 18 m apart. (5 cm 
scale) (NPS Chaco Archive Negative No. 14071.) 




Figure 9B.6. Two metate fragments (FS 4291) from Plaza 1, wall 
clearing at Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389) north of Rooms 
200 and 198, Layer 2. (15 cm scale) (NPS Chaco 
Archive Negative No. 17957.) 



1094 Chaco Artifacts 



Appendix 9C 
Intermediate Metate Analysis Form (LJH) 



Variable No. 


Category Description 


01-08 


Provenience Coding (same as inventory) 


09 


Weight 




Dimensions 


10 


Length 


11 


Width 


12 


Thickness 


13 


Burning 




- None 




1 - Partially 




2 - Utilized surface 


14 


Encrustation 




- Insignificant 




1 - Complete 




2 - Utilized Surface 


15 


Hardness 



Column Number(s) 



16 



17 



18 



19 



20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

25 



01 - Soft sandstone 

02 - Medium sandstone 

03 - Hard sandstone 

For other materials, see coding conventions 

Color 

1 -Tan 

2 - Gray 

3 - Mixed 

Geological Structure 

1 - Tabular 

2 - Tabular irregular 

3 - Massive tabular 
9 - Unknown 

Grain Size 

1 - Fine 

2 - Medium 

3 - Very fine 

Manufacture 

- Unmodified 

1 - Modified 

Dimensions of Utilized Surface 
Length 
Width 

Depth of trough 
Thinnest part of trough 
Near-end shelf width 

Assessment of Amount of Use 

1 - Light (0 - 1/3) 

2 - Medium (1/3 - 2/3) 

3 - Heavy (greater than 2/3) 
9 - Unknown 



1-18 
19-24 



25-26 
27-28 
29-30 



31 



32 



33-34 



35 



36 



37 



38 



39-40 
41-42 
43-44 
45-46 
47-48 

49 



Metates 1095 



Variable No. 



Category Description 



Column Number(s) 



26 



27-28 



29 



30 



31 



32 



33 



34 



35 



36 



Grinding Surface Preparation 

1 - Heavy pecking/light abrasion 

2 - Moderate pecking/moderate abrasion 

3 - Light pecking/heavy abrasion 
9 - Unknown 

Characteristics Associated with Grinding 

- None 

1 - Undulant trough walls (or bevelled) 

2 - Battering/crushing 

3 - Striations 

4 - Lateral shelf 
9 - Unknown 

Longitudinal Cross-section 
0- Other 

1 - Flat 

2 - Open-end trough 

3 - Double-sided 

4 - Double open-end 
9 - Unknown 

Latitudinal Cross-section 

1 - Trough 

2 - Double-sided trough 

3 - Stepped trough 
9 - Unknown 

Plan View 

1 - Rectangular 

2 - Angular-irregular 

3 - Rounded-irregular 

4 - Round 

Major Type 

- Other 

1 - Trough one-end-open 

2 - Trough two-ends-open 

3 - Two-sided trough 

4 - "Other trough" (for fragments) 
9 - Unknown 

Number of Major Secondary Utilized Surfaces 
(Contemporary with its use as a metate) 

Location of Major Secondary Utilized Surfaces 

1 - Trough 

2 - Adjacent/contiguous 

3 - Opposite 

Characteristics of Major Secondary Utilization 

1 - Ground/abraded 

2 - Battered/hacked/pecking/chipping 

3 - Gouged 

4 - Pigment 

Number of Other Utilized Areas 
(Contemporary with its use as a metate) 



50 



51-52 



53 



54 



55 



56 



57 
58 

59 
60 



1096 Chaco Artifacts 



Variable No. Category Description __ Column Number(s) 

37-38 Characteristics of Other Utilized Areas 61-62 

0-N/A 

1 - Pigment 

2 - Ground/abraded (passive) 

3 - Gouged/pecked 

4 - "Kill hole" 

5 - Striations 

6 - Battered/crushed 

7 - Burned 



39 



40 



41 FS Number 



Other Artifact Types 63 ' 64 

00 - N/A 

01 - Palette 

02 - Anvil 

03 - Firedog 

04 - Crusher/chopper 

05 - Metate 

06 - Hammerstone 

07 - Abrader 

08 - Mano 

10 - Vent shaft collar 

1 1 - Hearth slab/anvil 

Condition 6 ^ 

1 - Whole (usable) 

2 - Complete (broken, unusable) 

3 - Fragment 

73-78 



42 



Item Number . 79 ' 80 



Metates 1097 



Appendix 9D 
Final Metate Analysis Form 



Variable No. Category Description Column Number(s) 

01-08 Provenience Coding (same as inventory) 1-18 

09 Weight 19-24 



10 Length 25-26 

1 1 Width 27-28 

12 Thickness 29-30 

13 Burning 31 



Provenience Coding (same as inventory) 


Weight 


Dimensions 


Length 


Width 


Thickness 


Burning 


- None 


1 - Partially 


2 - Utilized surface 


3 - Completely 


Floor Wear 


- None 


1 - Light on bottom 


2 - Medium on bottom 


3 - Heavy on bottom 


4 - Light on edge 


5 - Medium on edge 


6 - Light on both 


7 - Medium on both 


8 - Heavy on both 


9 - Unknown 


Hardness 



14 Floor Wear 32 



15 Hardness 33-34 

01 - Soft sandstone 

02 - Medium sandstone 

03 - Hard sandstone 
For other materials, see coding conventions 

16 Color 35 

1 -Tan 

2 - Gray 

3 - Mixed 

4 - Other 

17 Geological Structure 36 

1 - Tabular 

2 - Tabular irregular 

3 - Massive regular 

4 - Massive irregular 

5 - Massive 

18 Grain Size 37 

1 - Fine 

2 - Medium 

3 - Very fine 

4 - Medium fine 



1098 Chaco Artifacts 

Variable No. Category Description Column Number(s) 

19 Manufacture 38 

- Unmodified 

1 - Chipped/flaked 

2 - Abraded 

3 - Pecked 

4 - 1 and 2 

5 - 1 and 3 

6 - 2 and 3 
7-1,2, and 3 

Dimensions of Utilized Surface 

20 Length 39-40 

21 Width 41-42 

22 Depth of trough 43-44 

23 Thinnest part of trough 45-46 

24 Near-end shelf width 47-48 

25 Assessment of Amount of Use 49 

1 - Light (0 - 1/3) 

2 - Medium (1/3 - 2/3) 

3 - Heavy (greater than 2/3) 

4 - Pecked outline 

26 Grinding Surface Preparation 50 

1 - Heavy pecking/light abrasion 

2 - Moderate pecking/moderate abrasion 

3 - Light pecking/heavy abrasion 

4 - No pecking/heavy abrasion 

27-28 Characteristics Associated with Grinding 51-52 

- None 

1 - Undulant trough walls 

2 - Battering/crushing 

3 - Striations 

4 - Lateral shelf 

5 - Asymmetrical wear to left (at near-end) 

6 - Asymmetrical wear to right (at near-end) 

Blank 53 

29 Shape of Near-end of Trough 54 

4- 

5 - 

6 - Irregular 

30 Plan View 55 

1 - Rectangular 

2 - Angular-irregular 

3 - Rounded-irregular 

4 - Round 

31 Major Type 56 

1 - Trough one-end-open 

2 - Trough two-ends-open 

3 - Two-sided trough 

4 - "Other trough" (for fragments) 

5 - Slab 

6 - Basin 

7 - Ceremonial beautiful 
8 -Utah 

32 Number of Major Secondary Utilized Surfaces 57 
(Contemporary with its use as a metate) 



Metates 1099 



Variable No. 



Category Description 



Column Number(s) 



33 



34 



35 
36-37 



38 



Location of Major Secondary Utilized Surfaces 

1 - Trough 

2 - Adjacent/contiguous 

3 - Opposite 

4 - 1 and 2 

5 - 1 and 3 

6 - 2 and 3 
7- 1, 2, and 3 

Characteristics of Major Secondary Utilization 

1 - Ground/abraded 

2 - Pecked 

3 - Gouged/battered/hacked (passive) 

4 - Pigment 

5 - Incised groove 

6 - Ground/gouged (anvil wear) 

7 - Wide, deep, parallel grooves in trough 

8 - Passive abrader 

9 - Concentration of pecks on bottom 

Number of Other Utilized Areas 
(Contemporary with its use as a metate) 

Characteristics of Other Utilized Areas 

1 - Pigment 

2 - Ground/abraded (passive) 

3 - Gouged/pecked 
4- 
5 
6 
7 
8 



58 



59 



60 
61-62 



Striations 

Battered/crushed 

Burned 



Other Artifact Types 
(Subsequent to being a metate) 

01 - Palette 

02 - Anvil 

03 - Firedog 

04 - Crusher/chopper 

05 - Metate 

06 - Hammerstone 

07 - Active abrader 

08 - Mano 

10 - Vent shaft collar 

1 1 - Post shim 

12 - Passive abrader 

13 - Saw edge 

14 - Drill base 

15 - Passive abrader with undulations in trough 

16 - Base for mealing bin 

17 - Mealing bin construction 
33 - Shaped slab cover 

44 - Notch 
55 - Step 



63-64 



1100 Chaco Artifacts 



Variable No. Category Description Column Number(s) 

88 - Building stone 

27 - Bin wear on near-end 

60 - Bin wear on far-end 

61 - Bin wear on lateral edge 

62 - Bin wear on center trough 

63 - 60 and 61 

64 - 60 and 62 

65 - 61 and 62 
66-60, 61, and 62 
67-27, 60, 61, and 62 

39 Condition 65 

1 - Whole and usable 

2 - Analytically complete and unusable 

3 - Fragment: No whole measurements possible 

4 - Fragment: Length only 

5 - Fragment: Width only 

6 - Fragment: Thickness only 

7 - Fragment: 4 and 5 

8 - Fragment: 4 and 6 

9 - Fragment: 5 and 6 

Dimension of Non-utilized Surface 

40 Left lateral shelf 66-67 

41 Right lateral shelf 68-69 

42 Characteristics of Trough 70 

1 - Flat bottom 

2 - Slightly concave (less than 1 cm) 

3 - Very concave (greater than 1 cm) 

43 Amount of Work Invested in Artifact 71 

1 - None/unmodified 

2 - Slight 

3 - Moderate 

4 - Extensive 

5 - Superior 

44 Disposition 72 

- Killed and broken 

1 - Worn-out (with hole in bottom) 

2 - Killed 

3 - Reused in construction 

4 - Reused in construction with hole 

5 - Reused in construction with kill hole 

6 - No obvious reason 

7 - Broken 

8 - Has become another artifact 

45 FS Number 73-77 
Blank 78 

46 Angle of the Trough 79-80 



Metates 1101 



Appendix 9E 
Grinding Surface Area 



The most frustrating aspect of the metate 
analysis was the general lack of complete metates 
from which to calculate grinding surface area. As 
discussed, increasing grinding surface area from 
basin to trough to slab metate is considered by many 
Southwestern archeologists to be a pan-Southwestern 
occurrence. This did not occur in Chaco Canyon; 
slab metates are absent. 

The increase in grinding surface area from basin 
to trough is as much a function of changing 
adaptation from gathering seeds to dependence on 
maize agriculture, as it is from any other factor. 
Open-at-one-end trough metates occurred in such 
large numbers in Chaco that all other types disappear 
statistically. The lack of complete metates and the 
woefully inadequate sample sizes render any 
statistical comparison invalid; therefore, some 
observations will be offered based on the material 
available. 

One additional fact complicated consideration of 
the grinding surface area. The first analyst measured 
the width of the trough at the top and I measured it 
at the bottom. I used the bottom width because I 
hoped to consider issues that perhaps were related to 
the cessation of use of a metate— if not obviously 
worn out. Very few were worn out, and most 
appeared to have many months of grinding 
remaining. 

As the mano grinds into the metate, the mano's 
ends are worn away and the grinding surface area 
decreases. At some point as the grinding surface 
decreases, it may be that the cornmeal output 
declined sufficiently that it was more efficient to 
begin to use a new metate with a larger grinding 
area. This would account for the few metates that 
were worn out and looked to be perfectly adequate. 
The lack of metates in primary context and the lack 
of whole ones precludes a meaningful analysis toward 
that suggestion. 

It is clear that new manos were used in Chaco 
metates. Table 9E. 1 lists a sample of measurements 



Table 9E. 1 . Undulations, depth in centi- 
meters from top of metate." 

Undulations 



Site and FS No. 


First 


Second 


Third 


29SJ 629 








FS561 


0-3 


3-5 


5-7 


FS726 


0-2 


2-6 


- 


FS 1104 


0-3.3 


3.3-6.4 


- 


FS 1883 


0-2.5 


2.5-5 


- 


FS 2007-1 


0-4 


4-? 
(broken) 


- 


FS 2007-2 


0-4 


4-8 


- 


FS 2830 


0-3.5 


3.5-7 


7-9 


FS 3286 


0-7 


7-9 


- 


FS 3574 


0-3.5 


3.5-7 


- 


29SJ 389 








FS 433-5 


0-3 


3-6 


6-9 


FS 433-7 


0-1.5 


1.5-2 


- 


FS 433-8 


0-2 


2-4 


4-5.5 


FS 433-9 


0-5 


5-6 


6-8 


FS 822-2 


0-6 


6-9 


9-11 


FS 822-3 


0-3 


3-5 


- 


FS 886 


0-4 


4-6 


- 


FS 900-1 


0-2 


2-4 


- 


FS 900-2 


0-5 


5-8 


- 


FS904 


0-6 


6-13 


- 


FS920 


0-2 


2-5 


- 


FS 1534 


0-1.5 


1.5-3.5 


3.5-4.5 


FS 4232-1 


0-2 


2-4.5 


4.5-6 


FS 5308-3 


0-1 


1-3 


- 



Note: This is a sample. Not all undulant trough walls were 
measured. 



1102 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9E.2. Average area at top ofmetate in square centimeters. 

Trough— Open-at-one-end Trough— Open-at-two-ends Slab 

Area Number 



Site Name/No. 


Area 


Number 


Area 


Number 


29SJ 423 


697 


3 


- 


- 


29SJ 1659 


813 


4 


- 


- 


29SJ 628 


708 


5 


- 


- 


29SJ 299 


848 


18 


- 


- 


29SJ 724 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 1360 


822 


13 


861 


2 


29SJ 629 


940 


5 


920 


1 


29SJ 627 


879 


5 


945 


2 


29SJ 389 


1,024 


44 


813 


2 


29SJ 390 


1,180 


2 


- 


- 


29SJ 391 (Una Vida) 


1,145 


11 


- 


- 


29SJ 827 


964 


20 


1,008 


6 


29SJ 633 


966 


1 


- 


- 


Pueblo Bonito 


1,074 


17 


- 


- 


29SJ 395 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Visitors Center 


1,058 


1 


- 


- 


Casa Rinconada 


1,200 


1 


- 


- 


Be 59 


934 


3 


- 


- 


Mockingbird Dump 


- 


- 


1,033 


5 


29SJ 838 


- 


- 


- 


- 


29SJ 753 


. 


. 


. 


. 



777 



540 

1,200 
720 



861 
918 



2? 

1 
1 



Table 9E. 3. Average open-at-one-end trough dimensions by site. 

Site Trough length (cm) Trough width, top Trough width, bottom (cm) Difference, top-bottom (cm) 
(cm) 

19 

19 

19.5 

21.5 

16 

22.2 17.7 4.5 

19 15 4 

19 

22.9 18.5 4.4 

29 25 4 

26.2 22.6 3.6 
23 19.1 3.9 

21.8 18.3 3.5 

24.1 20 4.1 

22.3 20 2.3 



29SJ 423 


36 


29SJ 1659 


36 


29SJ 721 


- 


29SJ 628 


36.5 


29SJ 299 


40 


29SJ 724 


- 


29SJ 629 


40.5 


29SJ 1360 


39.5 


29SJ 627 


39.5 


29SJ 389 


45.2 


29SJ 390 


- 


29SJ 391 


45 


29SJ 827 


42.7 


29SJ 633 


- 


Pueblo Bonito 


44 


Be 59 


41.7 



Metates 1 103 



of undulations in the trough walls. These occur when 
a smaller, but less worn, mano is used. Up to three 
undulations were recorded. 

In an attempt to increase the sample size of 
length and width measurements, I used averages that 
were based on complete measurements from each 
site. I also determined the average loss of trough 
width from the top to the bottom and examined those 
numbers, but in the end the results seemed too 
artificial. Given the long temporal use and reuse of 
the sites in Chaco Canyon and the general lack of 
metates recovered in primary context, it is not clear 
what a detailed reconstruction of grinding surface 
area would be measuring. Also, the different 
measurements obtained by different analysts (noted 
above) affects the average lengths and/or widths and 
reconstructed widths of either the top or the bottom. 

Ignoring sample size, it is clear that the few 
open-at-two-ends trough metates and slab metates 
have much smaller grinding surface areas than do the 
hundreds of open-at-one-end trough metates (Table 
9E.2). The former styles do not represent an 
increase in area or "efficiency" over the latter— as is 
alleged to be the case. It is clear, however, that the 
grinding surface area of the open-at-one-end trough 
metates was increasing through time in Chaco 
Canyon. The grinding surface area at the earlier sites 
averaged in the 700-900 cm 2 range, while the latter 
sites were in the 1000-1100 cm 2 range (Table 9E.2). 

With the exception of the single large slab 
metate from 29SJ 395, all of the remaining slab 



metates in Table 9E.2 represent a loss of hundreds of 
square centimeters of grinding area. This is not 
efficient. The grinding surface areas of the open-at- 
two-ends trough metate are, with several exceptions, 
between the areas of the slab and open-at-one-end 
varieties (Table 9E.2). The two exceptions are the 
average of 1,008 cm 2 for six examples at 29SJ 
827— a late site excavated in the 1958 and the 
unprovenienced ones from the Mockingbird Dump. 
The latter are probably from Pueblo Bonito, but there 
is no way to confirm the site of origin. 

A spatial plot of grinding surface length-by- 
width produces several clusters among earlier sites. 
The late sites are not as closely grouped and are 
clearly larger in size. Group 1 includes 29SJ 423, 
29SJ 1659, and 29SJ 628. Group 2 includes 29SJ 
299, 29SJ 1360, 29SJ 629, and 29SJ 627. Be 59, 
29SJ 827, Pueblo Bonito, 29SJ 389, and 29SJ 391 are 
each progressively larger. 

Table 9E.3 presents the average trough length, 
the average width at the top and the bottom, and the 
difference between the latter two measurements. 
Although the difference in top and bottom width 
measurements may not seem important, the effect is 
significant. If a trough were 45 cm long, then a 
trough width of 22 cm at the top produces a grinding 
area of 990 cm 2 , whereas a bottom width of 18 cm 
results in an area of 810 cm 2 . This is a loss of 18 
percent of the grinding capacity. Unless researchers 
report whether the trough width was measured at the 
top or at the bottom, it will not be possible to 
compare grinding surface area from site to site. 



1104 Chaco Artifacts 



Appendix 9F 
Metate Fragments 



The tables in this appendix consist of 
measurements and remarks concerning the small 
fragments from 29SJ 389 and 29SJ 633, and the 
infield recorded fragments at 29SJ 633. These 
fragments were too small and missing many of the 
variables recorded for the computer-based analysis; 
therefore, Table 9F.1 provides length, width, 
thickness, weight, and remarks, where pertinent, for 
metate fragments from 29SJ 389 (Pueblo Alto). 
These fragments were returned to the laboratory for 
analysis, but they are not part of the computerized 
data set. 

Table 9F.2 provides measurements and remarks 
for 137 metate fragments representing small pieces to 
complete metates. These were not returned to the 
laboratory and are not part of the computerized 
database. Due to the limited testing and excavation 



undertaken at 29SJ 633 and concomitant lack of 
overall provenience control, leaving these fragments 
in place on the site's surface was deemed most 
prudent. 

Tables 9F.3 and 9F.4 provide summaries of 
shelf-width and overall metate thickness for 29SJ 
633. As can be seen, all categories of metates 
discussed in the detailed recording in this chapter are 
represented at 29SJ 633. 

A total of 214 metate fragments (44 in the 
computerized data set, 33 reported in Table 9F. 1 , and 
137 field analyzed— Table 9F.2) from 29SJ 633 are 
included in this chapter. Time and decreasing 
daylight did not permit a complete inventory of all 
metate fragments at the site; however, this is a 
representative cross-section. 



Metates 1105 



Table 9F. 1 . Weights and measurements of metate fragments from 29SJ 389 (Pueblo Alto). 



Measurements in cm 



No. 


FS 

No. 


Major Proi 


1 


1280 


Room 103 


2 


1277 


Room 103 


3 


1312 


Room 103 


4 


1293 


Room 103 


5 


1294 


Room 103 


6 


1296 


Room 103 


7 


1293 


Room 103 


8 


1293 


Room 103 


9 


1293 


Room 103 


10 


1296 


Room 103 


11 


1297 


Room 103 


12 


1297 


Room 103 


13 


1300 


Room 103 


14 


1302 


Room 103 


1 


5312 


Room 109 


1 


5328 


Kiva 15 


2 


5331 


Kiva 15 


3 


5453 


Kiva 15 


4 


5453 


Kiva 15 


5 


5455 


Kiva 15 


6 


5456 


Kiva 15 


1 


1550 


Room 110 


2 


1686 


Room 110 


3 


5405 


Room 1 10 


4 


5408 


Room 110 


5 


5688 


Room 110 



Length Width Thickness Weight (g) Remarks 



1 7039 Room 112 

2 7086 Room 112 

3 7043 Room 112 

4 7029 Room 112 



11 


5 


2 


227 


9 


12 


2 


312 


14 


5.5 


3 


397 


10 


9 


3 


369 


7 


5 


1.5 


113 


8 


13 


3 


425 


7.5 


11 


3 


397 


9 


10 


2.5 


284 


14 


12 


2.5 


737 


5 


8 


2.5 


510 


10 


5 


2 


142 


7 


9.3 


3 


340 


12 


7 


2 


284 


18 


9 


2.5 


624 



14.5 



2.3 



567 



Floor 3, fill 

Floor 3, contact 

Floor 3, Posthole 2, construction 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 1 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 1 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 1 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 1, construction 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 1, construction 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 1, construction 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 1, construction 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 2 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 3 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 3 

Floor 3, Mealing Bin 3, construction 

Reused as chopper 



13 


12 


4 


737 


Fill 


13 


13 


3 


794 


Fill 


15 


15 


2 


680 


South wall, construction 


16 


12 


3 


567 


South wall, construction 


13 


10 


3 


539 


North bench, construction, chopper 


13 


10 


5 


680 


North wall, construction 


10.5 


7.5 


3.5 


454 


Floor 2, fill 


12 


8.5 


4 


652 


Wall Niche 5, construction 


9 


14 


2 


312 


Floor 1, fill 


9 


14 


1.5 


255 


Floor 1, fill 


9 


5 


2 


142 


Other Pit 5, construction 


15 


19 


6.5 


2,608 


Fill 


15 


12 


2 


454 


Fill 


12.5 


16 


4 


1,049 


Fill, palette 


5 


11 


1.5 


170 


Fill 



1106 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9F. 1. (continued) 



Measurements in cm 



FS 

No. No. Major Provenience 



Length Width Thickness Weight (g) Remarks 



5 7029 Room 112 



9.5 13 



2.5 



539 Fill 



1 2746 Room 142 



11 



652 Fill, chopper 



1 6879 Room 143 



340 Floor 1, Posthole 6, construction 



1 


6029 


Room 146 


1 


6251 


Room 147 


2 


6329 


Room 147 


3 


6329 


Room 147 


4 


6329 


Room 147 


5 


6331 


Room 147 


6 


6342 


Room 147 



11 



18 



17.5 


6.5 


10 


10 


20 


14 


15 


9 


8 


9 


10 


11 



2 


595 


Fill, palette 


6.5 


1,134 


Fill 


3 


510 


Floor 1, Firepit 1, construction 


4 


1,588 


Floor 1, Firepit 1, construction 


5 


1,332 


Floor 1, Firepit 1, construction 


2 


227 


Fill 


2.5 


454 


Fill, chopper 



1 6305 Kiva 10 



5.5 



71 



Fill 



1 


718 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
4 


8 


4 


1.5 


85 


Floor 3, contact 


2 


885 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
4 


10 


5 


2.5 


227 


Fill 


3 


891 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
4 


9 


7 


4 


397 


Fill 


1 


913 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


19 


16 


4 


1,531 


Fill, half burned 


2 


914 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


19 


19 


6 


2,268 


Fill, half burned 


3 


915 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


10 


11 


6 


907 


Fill, half burned 


4 


917 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


14 


20 


4 


1,219 


Fill, burned 


5 


917 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


20 


15 


6 


2,381 


Fill, burned 


6 


917 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


17 


14 


3 


936 


Fill, half burned 


7 


918 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


8 


4 


5 


284 


Fill, bumed 


8 


918 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


17 


13 


9 


2,325 


Fill, burned 



Table 9F. 1. (continued) 



Metates 1107 



Measurements in cm 



No. 


FS 

No. 


Major Provenience 


Length 


Width 


Thickness 


Weight (g) 


Remarks 


9 


920 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


11 


9.5 


5 


737 


Fill, chopper 


10 


921 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


8 


5 


5 


170 


Fill, burned 


11 


921 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


9.5 


8 


2.5 


369 


Fill 


12 


923 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


18 


10 


10 


1,758 


Fill, half burned 


13 


941 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


11 


8 


5 


737 


Fill, half burned, anvil 


14 


841 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


20 


12 


6 


1,644 


Ramp construction associated with 
fourth replastering, burned 


15 


818 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


18 


12 


7 


1,985 


Floor 1, burned 


16 


985 


Plaza Feature 1, Room 
3 


11 


8 


3.5 


539 


Fill, Firepit 1, burned 


17 


814 


Plaza Feature 1 , Room 
3 


16 


13 


4 


1,049 


Fill, Firepit 3, burned 


1 


79 


Plaza 1, Kiva 14 


4 


7.5 


2.5 


113 


Wall clearing, abrader 


2 


80 


Plaza 1 , Other Structure 
6(N) 


10 


7 


2 


227 


Wall clearing 


3 


95 


Plaza 1, Grid 96 


11.5 


7 


2.5 


482 


Fill, anvil wear 


4 


291 


Plaza 1, Rooms 198 and 
200 


22.5 


15 


4 


1,502 


Wall clearing, passive abrader 


5 


333 


Plaza 1, Grid 75 


6 


10 


4 


397 


Fill, active abrader 


6 


374 


Plaza 1, Grid 35 


11.5 


15.5 


3 


765 


Floor 4, active abrader 


7 


374 


Plaza 1, Grid 35 


11 


12 


7 


1,134 


Floor 4, hammerstone 


8 


283 


Plaza 1 , Other Structure 
6(W) 


21 


24 


3 


2,268 


Wall clearing, passive abrader 


9 


283 


Plaza 1 , Other Structure 
6(W) 


10.5 


5.5 


5 


369 


Wall clearing 


10 


283 


Plaza 1 , Other Structure 
6(W) 


10 


10.5 


2 


340 


Wall clearing, wide deep striations, 
passive abrader 


11 


355 


Plaza 1, Grid 30 


10 


16 


6 


1,899 


Fill, burned 


12 


? 


Plaza 1, Grid 116 


13 


8 


9 


709 


Fill 


1 


502 


Trash Mound 


14 


7 


3 


425 


Level 1 


2 


542 


Trash Mound 


20 


10 


4 


1,219 


Level 3 


3 


577 


Trash Mound 


11 


13 


4 


680 


Level 18 


4 


597 


Trash Mound 


15 


9 


1 


340 


Level 10 


5 


626 


Trash Mound 


13 


11 


2 


595 


Fill 



1 108 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9F. 1. (continued) 



Measurements in cm 



No. 



FS 

No. Major Provenience 



Length Width Thickness Weight (g) Remarks 



6 


626 


Trash Mound 


16.5 


15 


3 


936 


Fill 


7 


1642 


Trash Mound 


8 


9 


3 


425 


Fill, active abrader, burned 


8 


1642 


Trash Mound 


12 


11 


4 


737 


Fill 


9 


1737 


Trash Mound 


12 


7 


3 


340 


Level 24-31 


10 


4824 


Trash Mound 


18 


13 


3 


709 


Level 82, wide deep striations 


11 


1825 


Trash Mound 


9 


8 


3 


284 


Level 81 


1 


339 


Room 8 


15 


17 


5 


1,402 


Surface, burned 


2 


377 


Room 8 


14 


9 


4 


794 


Fill 


3 


383 


Room 8 


8 


8 


4 


340 


Floor fill 


1 


14 


Room 7 


12 


13 


4 


680 


Surface, SE Quad 


2 


14 


Room 7 


13 


10 


2 


454 


Surface, SE Quad 


3 


158 


Room 7 


21 


8 


10 


2,381 


Fill, NE Quad, reused as chopper, 
partially burned 


4 


753 


Room 7 


20 


7 


13 


2,268 


Rock Concentration 1 , SW Quad 


5 


255 


Room 7 


16 


9 


6 


907 


Fill, NE Quad 


6 


255 


Room 7 


10 


9 


2 


227 


Fill, NE Quad 


7 


98 


Room 7 


12 


8 


6 


907 


Fill, SW Quad 


8 


20 


Room 7 


12 


9 


2.5 


284 


Fill, SE Quad 


9 


20 


Room 7 


8 


12 


2.5 


397 


Fill, SE Quad 


10 


20 


Room 7 


15 


10 


3 


510 


Fill, SE Quad 


11 


20 


Room 7 


17 


7 


4.5 


737 


Fill, SE Quad 


12 


20 


Room 7 


10 


15 


9 


1,134 


Fill, SE Quad 


13 


857 


Room 7 


10 


9 


6.5 


851 


Subfloor 2, NE Quad, partially burned 


14 


810 


Room 7 


10 


13 


4 


624 


Floor fill (1), SW Quad, burned 


15 


663 


Room 7 


8.5 


7 


2.5 


227 


Floor fill (1), SW Quad, partially burned 


16 


856 


Room 7 


7 


7 


2.5 


170 


Subfloor (2), NE Quad 


17 


602 


Room 7 


10 


8 


3.5 


340 


Fill, NW Quad 


18 


141 


Room 7 


10.5 


10 


3 


624 


Fill, NE Quad, partially burned 


19 


21 


Room 7 


13 


8 


3 


454 


Fill, SE Quad, reused as chopper 


20 


225 


Room 7 


6 


7 


3 


199 


Fill, SE Quad 


21 


97 


Room 7 


12 


13.5 


4.5 


1,247 


Fill, SW Quad, reused as anvil 


22 


108 


Room 7 


8 


8 


2.5 


170 


Fill, NW Quad 



Table 9F. 1. (continued) 



Measurements in cm 



Metates 1 109 



No. 



FS 

No. Major Provenience 



Length Width Thickness Weight (g) Remarks 



23 



64 



Room 7 



14 



14 



3.5 



766 



Fill, SW Quad 



306 
310 
310 
310 
31S 

336 
1132 



Plaza 1 

Plaza 1 

Plaza 1 

Plaza 1 

Plaza 1 

Plaza 1 

Plaza 1 



14 


10 


7 


6 


15 


13 


26 


22 


14 


20 


10.5 


9 


11 


14 



6 822 Surface, Test Trench 1 

6 227 Surface, Test Trench 1 

5 907 Surface, Test Trench 1, partially burned 

3.5 2,608 Surface, Test Trench 1 

5 1,814 Surface, Test Trench 1, reused as anvil 
and passive abrader 

3 425 Surface, Test Trench 1 

2 454 Fill, Test Trench 3 



1110 Chaco Artifacts 

Table 9F.2. Metate fragments from the surface of29SJ 633, in-field recording. 



Measurements in cm 



Number Length 



Width 



Thickness Weight (g) Remarks 



1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

6 

7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 



44 
19 
21 
18 
28 

29 
19 

22 
22 
23 
23 
53 
24 
46 
54 
49 
28 
23 
24 
25 
12 
16 
21 
13 
13 
20 
16 
9 
35 
32 
14 
16 
20 



21 
23 
27 
15 
23 

11 
18 

9 
22 
22 
10 
28 
21 
28 
25 
38 
15 
13 
25 
21 
10 
11 
14 
24 
16 
17 
23 
14 
10 
19 

7 
13 
15 



9 
9 
4 
8 
7 

10 
7 

9 
7 
10 
7 
6 
5 

10 

13 

15 

7 

7 

11 

14 

4 

5 

13 

9 

6 

7 

9 

5 

6 

11 

9 

6 

5 



6,800 
3,175 
1,814 
1,361 
4,536 

4,082 
3,175 

1,814 

4,990 

5,443 

1,814 

14,061 

3,629 

9,072 

12,247 

20,865 

3,175 

1,814 

5,897 

6,350 

454 

907 
3,175 
2,722 
1,134 
2,722 
2,722 

454 
2,722 
7,711 

907 
1,361 
2,268 



One-half of trough metate. Trough is 43 cm long 



Intense anvil wear on near end, possibly contemporaneous with 
metate use 



Original metate had near end of 1 cm in width; reused as a metate 
(using same trough) but near-end shelf of 7 cm 



One-half trough metate; trough is 45 cm long 
Possible slab metate?/trough only? 
One-half trough metate; trough is 43 cm long 
Two-thirds trough metate; trough is 53 cm long 
One-half trough metate; trough is 48 cm long 



Reused as anvil 
Reused as mano 



Reused as anvil 



Near end is 16 cm wide 



Trough only 0.5 cm deep 



Table F. 2. (continued) 



Metates 1111 





Measurement* 


in cm 


Weight (g) 




umber 


Length 


Width 


Thickness 


Remarks 


34 


23 


18 


6 


3,629 




35 


21 


16 


8 


4,082 




36 


22 


23 


10 


4,082 




37 


30 


15 


9 


3,175 




38 


30 


22 


6 


4,990 




39 


26 


19 


14 


4,082 




40 


30 


27 


12 


7,711 


One-half of trough metate (later 


41 


25 


18 


7 


3629 




42 


18 


12 


7 


2,268 




43 


28 


10 


6 


1,814 




44 


16 


17 


5 


1,361 




45 


30 


14 


11 


3,629 




46 


48 


23 


7 


6,350 


One-half of trough metate 


47 


15 


14 


9 


1,361 




48 


19 


15 


5 


1,361 




49 


24 


16 


6 


1,814 




50 


19 


20 


8 


2,722 




51 


19 


18 


6 


1,361 


Burned 


52 


19 


21 


7 


2,722 




53 


23 


21 


6 


3,629 


Near end is 17 cm wide 


54 


41 


24 


9 


9,072 




55 


40 


17 


9 


5,897 


One-half of trough metate 


56 


27 


18 


10 


5,443 




57 


21 


47 


10 


11,793 


Trough is asymmetrical to right 


58 


20 


16 


5 


907 


Fragment is trough only 


59 


16 


13 


7 


1,361 




60 


18 


9 


10 


1,814 




61 


26 


12 


9 


2,268 




62 


28 


21 


11 


6,350 


Undulation in trough 


63 


15 


19 


10 


2,722 




64 


39 


33 


8 


11,340 


Two-thirds of trough metate 


65 


23 


26 


9 


5,897 




66 


12 


11 


6 


454 




67 


28 


22 


7 


2,268 




68 


27 


10 


10 


2,268 





1 1 12 Chaco Artifacts 
Table F.2. (continued) 



Measurements in cm 



lumber 


Length 


Width 


Thickness 


Weight (g) 


Remarks 


69 


24 


17 


9 


4,536 




70 


22 


18 


? 


2,268 




71 


12 


10 


6 


454 




72 


23 


25 


10 


4,536 




73 


21 


12 


12 


4,082 


Undulation in trough 


74 


25 


20 


7 


3,175 




75 


31 


15 


9 


4,536 




76 


23 


12 


6 


3,175 




77 


31 


18 


4 


3,175 


Trough only 


78 


26 


14 


8 


4,082 




79 


12 


14 


6 


1,361 




80 


52 


14 


13 


12,247 


Trough is 51 cm long 


81 


25 


23 


9 


4,536 


Slab? 


82 


28 


18 


10 


5443 




83 


10 


8 


? 


227 


Trough only 


84 


11 


11 


8 


907 




85 


6 


14 


4 


340 




86 


15 


4 


? 


454 


Trough only 


87 


23 


17 


9 


2,722 


Trough is asymmetrical to right 


88 


40 


16 


10 


4,082 




89 


19 


14 


7 


1,812 




90 


17 


18 


8 


907 




91 


17 


11 


7 


907 




92 


27 


14 


7 


3,629 




93 


26 


18 


7 


3,175 




94 


15 


18 


5 


680 


Burned 


95 


20 


29 


9 


5,897 




96 


23 


15 


4 


1,814 




97 


15 


7 


? 


907 




98 


26 


15 


8 


2,722 


Reused as passive abrader 


99 


31 


16 


10 


3,629 




100 


13 


22 


3 


1,361 


Lateral shelf is 19 cm wide 


101 


46 


41 


8 


14,061 


Two pieces match to form who! 


102 


24 


11 


9 


2,722 


One undulation in trough 


103 


27 


12 


6 


2,722 





Table F. 2. (continued) 



Metates 1113 



Measurements in cm 



Number Length 



Width 



Thickness Weight (g) Remarks 



104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 



26 
17 
44 
20 
26 
28 
25 
52 
11 
11 
14 
9 
17 
19 
29 
47 
18 
30 
23 
46 
20 
20 
17 
22 
23 
26 
15 
15 
19 
38 
47 
32 
26 
23 



28 
12 
29 
12 
18 
17 
15 
13 
10 
14 
6 
8 
4 
5 
17 
16 
22 
30 
9 
14 
21 
12 
10 
12 
12 
9 
11 
13 
21 
19 
12 
13 
32 
22 



9 

13 

6 

3 

9 

9 

8 

13 

8 

5 

4 

5 

7 

6 

10 

13 

6 

7 

11 

9 

8 

4 

11 

5 

6 

11 

8 

5 

9 

8 

14 

12 

10 

5 



5,897 
3,175 
9,072 

907 

4,082 

5,443 

3,629 

11,340 

680 
1,361 

181 
91 

454 

907 
4,536 
10,433 
2,722 
4,990 
3,175 
6,350 
2,268 
1,134 
2,268 
1,361 
2,268 
2,722 
1,814 

454 
4,536 
4,990 
13,154 
7,938 
9,525 
4,536 



Near end is 24 cm wide! 
Trough only 

Trough reused as passive abrader 

Trough is 5 1 cm long 



Burned 

Very fragmentary 
Very fragmentary 
Very fragmentary 

Two undulations in trough 



One undulation in trough 
Trough is 45 cm long 



One undulation in trough 



Two undulations in trough 



Trough is 24 cm wide at top, 20 cm wide at bottom 



1114 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 9F. 3. Width of lateral or near-end shelves of 

metatesfrom 29SJ 633, in-field recording. 



Less than 10 cm 10-15 cm Greater than 15 cm 

89 (all lateral) 23 (15 lateral) 5 (2 lateral) 



Table 9F.4. Thickness of metatesfrom 29SJ 633, 
in-field recording. 

Less than 8 cm Greater than 8 cm 

69 58 



Metates 1115 



References 

Adams, Richard N. 

1951 Half House: A Pithouse in Chaco Canyon, 
New Mexico. Papers of the Michigan 
Academy of Sciences. Arts and Letters 
35:273-295. 

Bartlett, Katherine 

1933 Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff 
Region and their Relation to Others in the 
Southwest. Museum of Northern Arizona 
Bulletin 3:3-32. 

1936 Symposium on Prehistoric Agriculture. The 
University of New Mexico Bulletin 1(5): 29- 
34. 

Bradley, Zorro A. 

1971 Site Be 236. Chaco Canvon National 
Monument. New Mexico . Division of 
Archeology, Office of Archeological and 
Historic Preservation, National Park 
Service, Washington, D.C. 

Brand, Donald D., Florence M. Hawley, Frank C. 
Hibben, and Donovan Senter 

1937 Tseh So, A Small House Ruin, Chaco 
Canyon, New Mexico. Preliminary Report. 
The University of New Mexico Bulletin . 
Anthropological Series 2(2). Albuquerque. 

Bullen, Ripley P. 

1941 Preliminary Report. Be 54, Chaco Canyon, 
New Mexico. Ms. on file, National Park 
Service Chaco Archive No. 2086, University 
of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Carter, George F. 

1977 The Metate: An Early Grain-Grinding 
Implement in the New World. In Origins of 
Agriculture , edited by Charles A. Reed, pp. 
693-712. Mouton, The Hague. 

Cattanach, George S., Jr. 

1980 Long House. Mesa Verde National Park. 
Colorado . Publications in Archeology 7H, 
Wetherill Mesa Studies. National Park 
Service, Washington, D.C. 



Ciolek-Torrello, R. 
1978 A Statistical 



Analysis of Activity 



Organization: Grasshopper Pueblo . Ph.D. 



dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. 
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 

Dutton, Bertha P. 

1938 Levit Kin. A Small House Ruin. Chaco 
Canvon. New Mexico. Excavation Report . 
University of New Mexico and the School of 
American Research Monograph No. 7. 
Albuquerque and Santa Fe. 

Eddy, Frank W. 

1964 Metates & Manos . Popular Series Pamphlet 
No. 1. Museum of New Mexico Press, 
Santa Fe. 

Hard, Robert Jarrott 

1986 Ecological Relationships Affecting the Rise 
of Farming Economies: A Test from the 
American Southwest . Unpublished Ph.D. 
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Hayes, Alden C. 

1981 A Survey of Chaco Canyon Archeology. In 
Archeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico , by Alden C. Hayes, David M. 
Brugge, and W. James Judge, pp. 1-68. 
Publications in Archeology 18 A, Chaco 
Canyon Studies. National Park Service, 
Washington, D.C. 

Hayes, Alden C, and James A. Lancaster 

1975 Badger House Community. Mesa Verde 
National Park. Colorado . Publications in 
Archeology 7E, Wetherill Mesa Studies. 
National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Hill, James 

1976 Research Design— Pajari to Archaeological 
Research Project. Ms. on file, National 
Park Service Chaco Archive, University of 
New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Judd, Neil M. 

1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito . 

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections No. 

124. Washington, D.C. 
1959 Pueblo del Arroyo. Chaco Canyon. New 

Mexico . Smithsonian Miscellaneous 

Collections No. 138. Washington, D.C. 
1964 The Architecture of Pueblo Bonito . 

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, No. 



1116 Chaco Artifacts 



147(1). Washington, D.C. 

Judge, W. James, H. Wolcott Toll, William B. 
Gillespie, and Stephen H. Lekson 

1981 Tenth Century Developments in Chaco 
Canyon. In Collected Papers in Honor of 
Erik Kellerman Reed, edited by Albert H. 
Schroeder, pp. 65-98. Papers of the 
Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 6. 

Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Paul Reiter (editors) 

1939 Preliminary Report on the 1937 Excavations, 
Be 50-51, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. 
University of New Mexico Bulletin 345, 
Anthropological Series 3(2). Albuquerque. 

Lange, Charles H. 

1959 Cochiti: A New Mexico Pueblo Past and 
Present . Southern Illinois University Press, 
Carbondale. 

Lister, Robert H. 

1964 Contributions to Mesa Verde Archaeology: 
I. Site 499. Mesa Verde National Park. 
Colorado . Series in Anthropology No. 9. 
University of Colorado Studies. Boulder. 

Loose, Richard W. 

1979 Excavations at Site 29SJ 299, Chaco 
Canyon, New Mexico. Ms. on file, 
National Park Service Chaco Archive, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Martin, Paul S., and Fred Plog 

1973 The Archaeology of Arizona . Doubleday/ 
Natural History Press, Garden City, New 
York. 

Mathien, Frances J. 

1984 Social and Economic Implications of Jewelry 
Items of the Chaco Anasazi. In Recent 
Research on Chaco Prehistory , edited by W. 
James Judge and John D. Schelberg, pp. 
173-186. Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 
8. National Park Service, Albuquerque. 

Maxon, James C. 

1963 Lizard House: A Report of a Salvage 
Archaeological Excavation at Chaco 
Canyon, New Mexico in 1960. Ms. on file, 
National Park Service Chaco Archive, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 



McGregor, J. 

1965 Southwestern Archaeology . University of 
Illinois Press, Urbana. 

Morris, Earl H. 

1928 Aztec Ruin . Anthropological Papers No. 

26. American Museum of Natural History, 
New York. 

1939 Archaeological Studies in the La Plata 
District. Southwestern Colorado and 
Northwestern New Mexico . Carnegie 
Institution Publication No. 519. 

Nemetz, J. A. 

1977 Archaeological Excavations at the Escalante 
Site. Dolores. Colorado. 1975 and 1976 . 
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of 
Anthropology, University of Colorado, 
Boulder. 

Pepper, George H. 

1920 Pueblo Bonito . Anthropological Papers No. 

27. American Museum of Natural History, 
New York. 

Pippin, Lonnie C. 

1979 The Archaeology and Paleoecologv of 
Guadalupe Ruin. Sandoval County. New 
Mexico . Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 
Anthropology, Washington State University, 
Pullman. 

Plog, Fred T. 

1974 The Study of Prehistoric Change . Academic 
Press, New York. 

Reed, Alan 

1979 The Dominguez Ruin: A McElmo Phase 
Pueblo in Southwestern Colorado. In The 
Archeology and Stabilization of Dominguez 
and Escalante Ruins by Alan D. Reed, 
Judith A. Hallasi, Adrian S. White, and 
David A. Breternitz, pp. 1-196. Colorado 
Cultural Resources Series No. 7. Bureau of 
Land Management. 

Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr. 

1929 Shabik'eshchee Village. A Late Basket 
Maker Site in Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . 
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 
92. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 
D.C. 



Metates 1117 



1931 The Ruins at Kiatuthlanna. Eastern Arizona . 
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 
100. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 
D.C. 

1932 Village of the Great Kivas on the Zuni 
Reservation, New Mexico . Bureau of 
American Ethnology Bulletin No. 96. 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Rohn, Arthur H. 

1971 Mug House . Publications in Archeology 
7D, Wetherill Mesa Series. National Park 
Service, Washington, D.C. 

Schelberg, John D. 

1979 Social Complexity in Chaco Canyon . Paper 
presented at the Second Conference on 
Scientific Research in the National Parks, 
San Francisco. 

1982 Economic and Social Development as an 
Adaptation to a Marginal Environment in 
Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . Unpublished 
Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern Univer- 
sity. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 

Senter, Donovan 

1939 Excavation Report, Chaco Canyon, Be 50, 
Season 1939. Ms. on file, Vivian Archive 
No. 020, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

Shelley, Phillip 

1980 Attribute Analysis of Metates and Milling 
Activities. In Investigations at the Salmon 
Site , edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams and 
Phillip H. Shelley, 111:97-114. Report to the 
Funding Agencies. Copy on file, National 
Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Swannack, Jervis, D., Jr. 

1969 Big Juniper House. Mesa Verde National 
Park. Colorado . Publications in Archeology 
7C, Wetherill Mesa Studies. National Park 
Service, Washington, D.C. 

Titiev, Mischa 

1972 Hopi Indians of Old Orabi: Change and 



Continuity . 
Ann Arbor. 



University of Michigan Press, 



Vivian, R. Gordon 

1950 The Mobile Unit Southwestern National 
Monuments Stabilization Report, Site Be 51, 
Chaco Canyon. Ms. on file, National Park 
Service Chaco Archive, University of New 
Mexico, Albuquerque. 

1965 The Three-C Site. An Early Pueblo II Ruin 
in Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . University 
of New Mexico Publications in 
Anthropology, No. 13. 

Vivian, R. Gordon, and Tom W. Mathews 

1965 Kin Kletso. A Pueblo HI Community in 
Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . Southwest 
Parks and Monuments Association, 
Technical Series 6(1). 

Vivian, R. Gwinn 

1970 Aspects of Prehistoric Society in Chaco 
Canyon. New Mexico . Unpublished Ph.D. 
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 
University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Windes, Thomas C. 

1993 The Spadefoot Toad Site. Excavations at 
29SJ 629 in Marcia's Rincon and the Fajada 
Gap Pueblo II Community . Reports of the 
Chaco Center No. 12. Branch of Cultural 
Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Woodbury, Richard B. 

1939 Ground and Pecked Stone Artifacts (Other 
Than Arrow-Shaft Tools). In Preliminary 
Report on the 1937 Excavations. Be 50-51. 
Chaco Canyon. New Mexico, edited by 
Clyde Kluckhohn and Paul Reiter, pp. 58- 
79. University of New Mexico Bulletin 
No. 345, Anthropological Series 3(2). 
Albuquerque. 

1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of 
Northeastern Arizona . Reports of the 
Awatovi Expedition No. 6. Papers of the 
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology 
and Ethnology, No. 54. Harvard 

University, Cambridge. 



1118 Chaco Artifacts 



Chapter Ten 



Ornaments of the Chaco Anasazi 



Frances Joan Mathien 



The analysis of ornaments and minerals from 
the NPS Chaco Project provides information that 
supplements other artifact analyses and assists in the 
interpretation of the "Chaco Phenomenon." This 
chapter will present the major conclusions reached 
after an examination of the literature from previous 
excavations at sites in Chaco Canyon, an analysis of 
ornaments and minerals from sites excavated during 
the Chaco Project, a review of available material 
from other excavated sites in Chaco Canyon and 
surrounding areas, and discussions with colleagues 
associated with the project. 

Over 20 sites were excavated or tested during 
the Chaco Project. Numerous ornaments were 
recovered from these sites that range in time from 
Archaic through Pueblo III, as well as Navajo. 
Ornaments were made from a variety of materials, 
some of which were also present in sites as raw 
materials or partially worked artifacts. This chapter 
is not an all-inclusive report; readers who want 
details on ornaments and minerals from each site 
excavated by the Chaco Project are referred to the 
published site reports (Mathien 1987, 1988, 1991, 
1992b, 1993) or to the combined draft overview 
(Mathien 1985). Additionally, two sites that were 
excavated by NPS, but were not a part of the Chaco 
Project, have been analyzed (Mathien 1990a, 1990b). 
The data from those two sites were not incorporated 
into this report; they do not change the conclusions 
reached herein. 

Because a number of questions regarding the 
manufacture and use of ornaments cannot be 
answered unless a more comprehensive study of the 
available materials is undertaken, an examination of 
unworked or partially worked minerals was included. 
This additional material provides information on 



minerals that were not used as ornaments, except on 
rare occasions. Some of these, e.g., hematite, 
limonite, and selenite, were assigned a low priority 
during analysis; they were counted, but were not 
analyzed in great detail. Some of them occur 
naturally in nearby deposits; many were not listed for 
all sites as a result of cultural events or because they 
had not been systematically collected. Several 
questions relating to materials, the personnel and 
technology involved in jewelry-making, and 
ultimately, inferences about social organization, 
however, illustrate the reasons for including these 
unworked or partially worked minerals. 

What minerals and other materials were locally 
available prebistorically for ornament manufacture? 

Which of these available materials were used 
for ornaments? 

What materials were imported from other areas, 
either as finished ornaments or as raw material for 
the production of jewelry? 

Can jewelry workshop areas be documented for 
the Chaco Anasazi? Or, for other Anasazi groups? 

What was the technology used for the manu- 
facture of ornaments? What are the limits of this 
technology, based on the evidence available? 

What inferences can be made regarding the 
possible values of these materials to the prehistoric 
population and social interaction among different 
groups? 

To answer these questions, several different 
studies were outlined. Some information regarding 



1120 Chaco Artifacts 



these studies has been documented elsewhere: 
sources of turquoise (Mathien 1981, 1992a; Mathien 
and Olinger 1992); location of jewelry workshops in 
Chaco Canyon (Mathien 1984a); identification of 
materials used in small white discoidal beads 
(Mathien 1984b); possible local sources of argillite 
(Mathien 1994); and detailed studies on ornaments 
and minerals from Chaco Canyon sites (Mathien 
1985). This report will summarize the methods used, 
present the results obtained, and address the questions 
listed above. 

Methods 

Several types of data were recorded for each 
ornament and mineral examined. All were listed by 
provenience (e.g., site number, general provenience 
unit and unit number, general level, floor indicator, 
layer-level and level characteristic, feature category 
and feature number, and feature level category); field 
specimen (FS) number or catalog number, as well as 
specimen number; material type; dating; artifact class 
and shape; evidence of manufacture or modification 
(e.g., evidence of perforations, striations, drilling, 
notching, grinding, polishing, beveling, carving); 
color and matrix, if present; condition of the artifact; 
and measurements in centimeters (length, width, 
thickness, and perforation size). For some of these 
categories, further explanation is needed. 

Material Identification 

To assess the materials found at numerous sites, 
lists of known ornaments and minerals from all 
previously excavated sites in Chaco Canyon were 
obtained from the field catalog sheets, as well as 
from published and unpublished reports. 

Geological type specimens for those materials 
were collected by A. Helene Warren and David W. 
Love, both geologists formerly associated with the 
Chaco Project. These type collections were used as 
references during identification of minerals that were 
not familiar to the author; Warren and Love were 
consulted when comparisons of artifacts to the type 
collection specimens was inconclusive. 

All shell or suspected shell items were identified 
as to species, if possible, by Helen DuShane of the 
Division of Malacology, Los Angeles County 
Museum of Natural History. In addition to the shell 
artifacts recovered from sites surveyed or excavated 



during the Chaco Project, she classified shells from 
earlier excavations that were curated by the National 
Park Service Chaco Project. Land snails from one 
site (29SJ 626), which was analyzed later (Mathien 
1990a), were identified by Richard Smartt, Curator 
of Zoology, New Mexico Museum of Natural 
History. 

During the course of these material 
identifications, several problems arose. They affect 
the answers to several of the questions listed above. 

Shell versus Calcite/Travertine (Mexican onyx) 

Small white discoidal beads had been modified 
so that their original material is not obvious; it could 
be bone, calcite/travertine, or shell. Judd (1954:92- 
93) noted that the material from Pueblo Bonito "... 
has been variously designated ... as stone, bone, 
and shell . . . those actually tested proved to be 
shell." Not all field workers are able to correctly 
identify materials, especially if the beads are dirty or 
the field hands are untrained in mineral identification. 
Unless the classifier is familiar with an area and the 
problem, the wrong material type may be assigned to 
an object (Mathien 1984b). 

Following DuShane's examination of the "shell" 
material and discussions with Warren, one result was 
a study of how to tell shell from calcite/travertine if 
the material has been greatly modified. DuShane 
noted that many of the small white discoid beads 
could have been either shell or some other white 
stone of a similar composition. She was not familiar 
with the geology of New Mexico, but Warren was 
aware of numerous calcite/travertine deposits and she 
was able to discern differences among the specimens. 
Proper material identification was important because 
calcite/travertine is a material that is quite abundant 
in northwestern New Mexico (Northrop 1959), but 
shell is a long-distance import, usually from the Gulf 
of California or the Pacific Coast (Keen 1971). 
Correct identification of such materials affects 
interpretations of trade networks. A method was 
needed to clarify these distinctions for other analysts 
(including this one). 

Because both materials are calcium carbonate 
and respond similarly when a drop of acid is placed 
on them, a more detailed examination of the artifacts 
was necessary. Review of this problem (Mathien 
1984b) indicates that the growth patterns in the shell 



Ornaments 1121 



produce fine layers that look very much like the 
ridges in a fingerprint. Shell often, but not always, 
retains a glossier appearance than calcite/travertine. 
Calcite/travertine often exhibits dark lines which 
result from depositional history; these are usually 
irregular and spaced farther apart than shell growth 
lines. Additionally, calcite/travertine contains foreign 
inclusions and/or cavities with a very different pattern 
from shell. 

Jet and Other Black Minerals 

Black minerals posed another problem. Some 
black shales are hard and resemble bituminous coal 
or lignite. The term "jet" is usually used to describe 
lignite, but it also covers black marble. Various 
black shales and other materials are often classified 
under this name. Because shales come in a variety of 
colors, some are easy to classify, but black shales are 
more difficult to identify unless a detailed analysis of 
the artifact is performed. Because this study was 
non-destructive and performed without the aid of a 
microscope, there is a possibility of misidentification. 

A review of some of the terms indicates the 
extent of the problem. Brand (1937:55-62) provides 
definitions for several black minerals under 
consideration. The following are taken from his 
work: 

Cannel coal is commonly considered to be a 
compact variety of bituminous coal, although it 
averages less fixed carbon and more volatile material. 
It possesses a dull luster and conchoidal fracture. No 
deposits of cannel coal have been reported from the 
Chaco area, but small lenses could occur in the 
predominant sub-bituminous seams (found in the 
area). Artifacts recovered from sites in Chaco 
Canyon indicate it was used for beads. 

Carbonaceous shale is found in altered clay beds 
containing brownish bituminous material. It is quite 
common in Chaco Canyon, especially in the upper 
portion of the Allison member. It was used for 
flooring, etc., in pueblo construction, and for pot 
covers, ornaments, etc. 

Gilsonite or Uintahite is a brittle variety of 
asphalt that is lustrous black in color and has a 
conchoidal fracture. It is probably the same as 
manjak. Found in Utah, western Colorado, and in 
veins in sandstone strata southwest of Aztec, it 



superficially resembles another asphalt (wurtzilite), 
and has frequently been confused with the jet variety 
of lignite. It was usually employed for ornaments, 
inlays, and "buttons." 

Jet is a "jet black" variety of brown coal or 
lignite. It is a compact hydrocarbon, takes a high 
polish, and has a conchoidal fracture. It was used 
for beads, "buttons," inlays, and various other small 
carved items. There may be some confusion in the 
identification of items listed by archeologists as jet, 
lignite, and gilsonite. The material is probably 
derived from the coal seams in Chaco Canyon. 

Lignite is a variable variety of coal that is 
ordinarily brown in color and ligneous in texture; it 
checks irregularly and breaks into thin slabs. The 
black form of lignite is known as sub-bituminous 
coal. This is the dominant type in the Allison and 
Chacra members of the Mesaverde group. Various 
ornaments of lignite have been recovered. 

Red Minerals 

Again, Brand (1937) provides several terms that 
cover materials that possibly were used for red beads 
and pendants. 

Argillite is a schist or slate derived from clay. 
In the Chaco area, it is probably derived from 
argillaceous shale beds in the Allison member or 
from the Lewis or Kirtland shales. 

Reddle is a clay and red ochre mixture 
resembling argillite, but softer. It was found as 
beads at Tseh So and probably was obtained from 
local shales. 

Other Colored Minerals 

Additionally, Brand (1937) discusses several 
other materials that were used to make ornaments. 

Clay is an earthy material that is plastic when 
wet and composed chiefly of hydrous aluminous 
silicates. Most of the clays in Chaco Canyon are 
recent alluvial (in the valley fill) and argillaceous 
shales. Found principally in the upper portion of the 
Allison member, and to a minor extent in the Chacra 
sandstone, are thin stringers of hard white clay 
interbedded with lignite and sandstone. The sandy 
alluvial clay or adobe found exposed in the Chaco 



1122 Chaco Artifacts 



channel walls was used for plaster, mortar, and wall 
fill. Beads and other ornaments were likewise made 
from clay. 

Shale is a soft sedimentary rock, normally with 
a thinly laminated structure that is formed by the 
consolidation of beds of mud, clay, or silt. In the 
Chaco area, the shales are only less important than 
the sandstones. Gray, green, brown, and black 
shales are most common, the black to gray 
carbonaceous shales being preponderant. Shale was 
used as floor material, for beads and other 
ornaments, olla lids or covers, tablets and palettes, 
etc. Archeological reports normally do not 
differentiate among the shales, but some reports list 
specific types: argillaceous shale, green shale, 
carbonaceous shale, ferruginous shale, and siltstone. 
Siltstone is a fine-grained clastic rock that is included 
in shale. 



the burn area. Layers above and below range in 
color from a pinkish shade to near maroon. In the 
area just south of the old monument fence, near site 
29SJ 1337, there are layers that are yellowish. 
Along the south side of South Mesa and West Mesa 
are other outcrops of red shale. The westernmost of 
these outcrops are not as fine-grained and more 
closely match Brand's description of reddle. During 
the survey of Chaco Canyon, numerous sites in the 
area were noted to have artifacts of this material on 
the surface. Those that were collected by the survey 
crews were examined and resemble material from the 
nearby source locations (Mathien 1994). In 1995, a 
collection of material from five source areas and 25 
artifacts from several sites was sent to James N. 
Gunderson and Lillian Pollach at Wichita State 
University for more detailed study. Until their 
results are available, for purposes of this study, all 
ornaments were called argillite. 



In addition to the above, the following 
definitions from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 
(1951, second edition) add to our comprehension of 
the problem. 

Schist covers any metamorphic crystalline rock 
having a foliated structure and readily split into slabs 
or sheets. 

Slate is a dense, fine-grained rock produced by 
the compression (metamorphism) of clays, shales, 
etc., so as to develop a characteristic cleavage. 

To resolve the mineral identification problem 
for this study, it was assumed that all shales were of 
local origin. The Allison member of the Mesaverde 
group, the Chacra member, and the Lewis shales are 
part of the rocks exposed along the Chaco Wash to 
some extent from Pueblo Pintado to the junction of 
the Chaco Wash with the Escavada. 

Argillite is the term that was used to identify all 
red shale-like ornaments in this report. Some red 
material was often called red dog shale by the 
archeologists who worked on the project. Yet, there 
were darker and harder artifacts that were referred to 
as red shale. As a result, a brief reconnaissance of 
Chaco Canyon was made. Outcrops of the fine- 
grained red material are found along the south and 
west end of Chacra Mesa— in view of Fajada Butte. 
The shale beds or layers also include some pieces that 
are both red and gray, which indicates the extent of 



Gray and lighter brown shale objects posed no 
problems. They are called shale and a color was 
associated with the material identification. 

Black objects posed the greatest problem. They 
ranged in appearance from dull to polished, and from 
soft to hard. Extremely soft pieces were identified as 
lignite; the layers were usually visible. The hard, 
well-polished artifacts, usually discoid beads, ranged 
from brownish-black to dark black. There was no 
way to determine whether some pieces were gilsonite, 
jet, or shale. All were classified as shale, black, 
except for a very few ornaments that were classified 
as jet because they were much harder, e.g., a ring 
from 29SJ 1360. 

As a result, there are probably some incorrect 
identifications of materials called argillite and shale. 
The questions about source areas utilized, however, 
are probably not greatly affected by these 
determinations. 

Mica-muscovite versus Shaved Selenite 

Another mineral identification problem surfaced 
several years after the analyses were completed and 
some site reports published (Mathien 1987, 1988). 
The material identified as mica-muscovite throughout 
this analysis may, in some cases, be thin shaven 
pieces of selenite. Dodge (1990) prepared pieces of 
selenite for a class display; they very much resembled 
the items listed as mica in this report. Obvious 



Ornaments 1 123 



pieces of selenite were identified as such in this 
report; the thin leaves that were originally classified 
as mica were not changed because Love had 
suggested this term during the study. Selenite is 
abundant in Chaco Canyon; mica is available in the 
San Juan Basin. The number of items classified as 
mica are few; therefore, imports would have been 
few if this material was misidentified. 

Source Area Identification 

Brand (1937) describes the natural landscape in 
the Chaco area as follows: 

The Allison member is made up of 
interbedded sandstones and carbonaceous 
shales, with stringers of white clay, 
argillaceous shale, selenite, and coal. In 
the vicinity of Casa Rinconada the coal 
seams are thin, and the coal varies from 
lignite to subbituminous. Progressing 
westward the seams increase in thickness, 
and the quality of the coal improves 
(Brand 1937:40). 

Two fossils (casts of Halymenites major and shells of 
Inoceramus barabini) are also found locally, as are 
sharks teeth. 

Within 15 miles (ca. 24 km) to the northeast of 
Chaco Canyon are numerous outcrops of the Lewis 
and Kirtland shales. The latter contains barite, 
gypsum, aragonite, siderite, and petrified wood. The 
Ojo Alamo sandstone contains silicified logs, pebbles 
of red jaspery quartz, brown and gray chert, vein 
quartz, pink and white quartzite, rhyolite, andesite, 
felsite, porphyrite, granite, gneiss, schist, obsidian, 
lignitized wood, manganese concretions, and 
limonitic concretions. The Puerco and Torrejon 
formations contain calcite crystals, chert, and quartz. 
Thus, within a 15-mile (24 km) radius, there are 
numerous minerals available for use by the 
inhabitants of Chaco Canyon (Brand 1937). Love 
(Appendix 3A of this report) provides additional 
information on stone sources. 

Identification of source areas also relied heavily 
on Northrop (1959) for minerals and Keen (1971) for 
Pacific Coast shells (Tables 10.1 and 10.2). 

Turquoise, one material that was used in 
abundance by the Chaco Anasazi, comes from many 



sources, and it was important to try to identify which 
sources were mined for the thousands of turquoise 
ornaments and pieces that were found in Chaco 
Canyon sites. In an attempt to discover the turquoise 
source deposits, 218 specimens from 16 archeological 
sites were taken to local traders for possible 
identification of mining localities. J. C. Zachary, Jr. 
and his brother have been in the turquoise jewelry 
business (Zachary Bros. Indian Jewelry and Zachary 
Turquoise Inc.) in Albuquerque for many years. 
They kindly agreed to look at some artifacts. 
Although the Zachary brothers were able to suggest 
possible source areas for the bulk of the material 
examined, they were not able to identify a specific 
source. 

There are two reasons why the prehistoric 
turquoise looks different from modern turquoise; 
thus, source identification is difficult. First, minerals 
obtained prehistorically were likely to have come 
from veins that have been exhausted, and, second, 
turquoise changes color as it is handled and worn. 
The effect of discard, burial, etc., in archeological 
sites is not known. The colors revealed by a fresh 
break in an artifact are often different from the 
exterior surfaces. These two factors, combined with 
the knowledge that turquoise from the same vein 
varies in color, and that turquoise from different 
areas within a vein or from different veins within the 
same deposit varies in element composition, makes it 
very difficult to indicate prehistoric sources from 
visual analysis alone. The Zachary brothers did 
suggest three possibilities as the most common 
sources: the King mine in Colorado, the Cerrillos 
District southeast of Santa Fe, NM, and a mine in 
Nevada (Mathien 1980). 

Several investigators have used trace element 
analyses in an attempt to identify the source(s) of 
turquoise artifacts. Sigleo (1970) used arc emission 
spectrometry to analyze 80 source samples collected 
from 25 mines and 8 artifacts. Her results indicated 
that turquoise from Chaco Anasazi sites came from 
Mineral Park, AZ, Mine 16 at Cripple Creek, CO., 
and possibly from Crescent Peak, NV. 

In an attempt to obtain a more definitive 
answer, and especially to evaluate the Cerrillos 
Mining District in New Mexico (an area that has 
been suggested as a source of Chacoan turquoise for 
many years [e.g., Judd 1954]), neutron activation 
was considered because studies using this technique 



1124 Chaco Artifacts 



1 

I 

I 



i 




x 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X X 



X 



1 



•a 


« 


o 




OO 


7Zi 


p 


oo 


1 


i 



■c 



Q 



2 

00 



U 



u u 



a 

| 
U 



•2.0 



1 



1 



2S3 3. 



£S 



X 



X 



X X 



X <^- 



<8 <£ "O 



9 


■« 


"«> 


<r 


o 


'— 














3 


3 


3 


■ 


09 


<» 


& 


& 


& 


U 





U 



Ornaments 1125 



Sac 

nil 



O On Q.CTV 

a go;a g 



o fi 

I* 

■a j> 




u 
•s 

.5 
1 






■ .£> M 



.1 



r-<2 2 



C 



■ « 2 

a P - 



1- 



2 a§- 



2 

o 

5: 



5 J* 



l-Sfid 



o 



11 

■g « 

is 

SO u 

rj b 



s-s 




■a 

o 



a on, 



8-9'g 3 
••SSj 6 



8 g' 



€ 1- 
1 T 



0\ 



1 

e 

CO 



•c -a 



Sg» 



3 

u 



> .-3 



2 • -^ 






«1 


.8 5 


.1 


is 

4J _ 


p 

oo 


£>2 


4> <M 


tn 


18 


I 2 

B a. 


4 
oo 
tn 




^> 09 




o 


o-s 


6\ 


*l 


O w, 


v> 




CT\ 


m B 


en o 




Ov •" 


C3\ o 




-H 4> 




9* 


■Si 

B « 


c.a 


2 
3 


2 g 


S"S 


o 


09 a. 


co.S 


55 






x 



x 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X X 



X 



X X 



X X 



X 



X 



.8 



•9J 

3 






■c 



E 



•a 

o 

s 



•5 


*« 


3 


E 

4> 


o 

0) 


K 


K 


O 


o 


o 


ac 



S 5 






•a 

•a 

o 

a 



■8 



1 

3 



s 



1126 Chaco Artifacts 



« 



! 



i5 




2 

■c 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X X 



X 



X X 



3 

if 



I II I 



o 

'a. 
u 

00 



e 

c 
o 

& 

u 

CO 



73 
£ 

<S1 



3 
a. 



o 

3 



Ornaments 1 127 



I 



"8 



o 
O 

09 



Pi 



O 

Z 




-g 

»1 s 
co co 35 



c 
o 
■s 

a 



2 

§ 

CO 



■ ' X 



1 



.8 



•3} 



£ 



IB 

— T 

SI B 8 8-3 8.2£ 

5MUUntt<Ococo^ 



1128 Chaco Artifacts 



K 

Cft 

"3 
-ft 

*T 

1 

Q 
I 

3 



6 
-32 
i5 



I 



« 



jS 

I 

a, 



•s 



o 

I 

X 

6 



a, 

2 
o 

o 

•a 

o 



1 " 

-T» ft 



« a ■ 

«U 3 

« N a 

•gas 
<3§i 

C en a 



•c 

es 
03 

z 






8" 

S 

■c 



3 



1 e 

I 
5 



i 



u&§o o* u 



2 K 
9 o 






I 



1 -s 

2 1 

Q 



i 

a 



e 



1 



iSl 



■llS 



8 2 



si I 

86 | 

.2 eg S 

«S a u 

©•a 

§1 ■§ 

a, P. 



8 



.a -b 



a 2 



TO JS 

> & 






E 

3 
1 



1 

a ' a 

I ! 
1 1 

1 1 



■B 



2 
o 

o 

•a 

5 



I 



<S 



«« » 



§ 

■a 



I 



a o 

,9 u. 



T3 



5 

ft. 

2 
-5 

3 



•3 
U 



.a 



2 2 
8 3 



3 J 
2 



■a 



3 S3 



•a 



S O 



6 



to <fi 



3 

o 

a 

■3 

o y3 — 



to 1 s i 



8 
9 



— « W> 

o g S 

° e 1 

•o «~ •« 



8 

u. 




t- 




ST 


VI 




fS 


ON 




00 


~H 




— < 


fcT 




>^ 


a 




■e 


s 




«> 


& 


m 


! 






to 


«« 




4 


2 


e 
o 


Q. 

■c 



1 

© 



■I 




p 

oo 



■e 

o 

•J 

o 
to. 



5 
o 

£ c 



a & 2 



Pi 

•s 

1 



r u 



< 
Q 



rt -h — <s «n m ts 



■8 

IB 
1 

I 



•h IN ** 






E 



a 



1 

E 
2 

o 



■e 

«j 

I 

CO, 

•c 



.S 



Ornaments 1129 



1 

I 



3 

■c 



Q 
i 



1 



u 

o 



a 
O 



(3 

c 
o 



5 

O i) 



J* 



I 



i 

o 



ai 



1 



.8 






5 



T3 

C 
O 

o 

CO 



o 



s 

2 

03 



OS'S w 



•oB 
S o 

it 

U o 



3 

o 






■e 

o 

CO 
u 


"3 



•c 



? '"3 

s u 

S "g 

o O 



£ 



S 

o 

u 



5 

3 



£ 



U 



3 .2 

g 

1 I 

„ cj 

S 3 

f I 



2 
H 

3 



m 



•e 

u 

o 

CO 



u 


o 


E 

3 


8 


"2 


P. 


D| 


t» 


<Sl /~\ 


Cfl 


E 


1 


!«1 


"o 


3 


3 


3s 


£ 










1 


1 

03 


^ 


3 
1 


O 


o 

>■ 


€ 


o 


J= 


M 


1) 




o 


o 


> 


s 


G 


o 
to 


.3 



3 B 2 



1 

a 



■8 

ta 

1 

<u 

•1 

3 
I 



1 



3 Z 



— — CO 



1130 Chaco Artifacts 



were well underway (Weigand et al. 1977). A 
sample of 150 turquoise artifacts from 10 Chaco 
Canyon archeological sites was forwarded to 
Brookhaven National Laboratory in 1978, and 
preliminary results were received (Bishop 1979; 
Mathien 1981). Although neutron activation tests 
indicated that the turquoise was remarkably 
homogeneous with quite consistent copper values, 
much like what one would expect if it was procured 
from a fairly restricted source, no source area was 
identified. There were two clusters, however, that 
indicated some relationship between artifacts from 
Chaco Canyon sites and the sites of Guasave in 
northern Sinaloa and Snaketown in Arizona. 

In addition to the turquoise artifacts, source 
specimens from the Cerrillos M inin g District had 
been collected during a survey of the southern part of 
that district (Warren and Mathien 1985) and 
forwarded to Brookhaven, but the results of 
comparisons of these specimens with Chaco Canyon 
artifacts were not then available. An informal 
discussion with Phil C. Weigand (personal 
communication, 1983), indicated that continued 
research on the problem did not provide more 
definitive answers as of that date. Recently, 
however, Harbottle and Weigand (1992; Weigand and 
Harbottle 1992) indicate that the Cerrillos Mining 
District, where there is much evidence of prehistoric 
and historic turquoise minin g (Levine and Goodman 
1990, Levine et al. 1991; Warren and Mathien 1985), 
is a probable source for Chaco Canyon turquoise 
artifacts. Additionally, Wiseman and Darling (1986) 
have documented several sites in the area that have 
mining tools as well as sherds similar to those found 
in the San Juan Basin; these authors suggest some 
contact and trade took place. Recently Harbottle and 
Weigand (1992:84; Weigand 1994:29) presented 
schematic maps of turquoise trade routes; they show 
turquoise flowing into Chaco Canyon from sources in 
Colorado and Nevada, as well as Cerrillos. 

As a result of these preliminary studies on a 
limited number of specimens (less than 400 out of 
100,000 + ), it is difficult to specify how much 
turquoise in Chaco Canyon came from which source 
areas or when. The only inference made herein is 
that turquoise is not available from within the San 
Juan Basin and must have been imported to Chaco 
Canyon from one or several mines located throughout 
the western United States and northwestern Mexico. 
Additional study is needed to determine the exact 



source or sources for the many turquoise artifacts 
recovered from Chaco Canyon sites. 

Assignment of General Procurement Areas 

Once the problems in material identification 
were addressed and probable source areas located, 
the materials were assigned to one of three general 
procurement areas. "Local" indicates that a material 
could be found in and around Chaco Canyon. 
"Basin" indicates that it could be found outside the 
larger Chaco Canyon area but within the San Juan 
Basin. "External" was assigned to those materials 
imported from sources located outside of the San 
Juan Basin. Tables 10.1 and 10.2 list the source 
areas for mineral and shell types. 

Assignment to Time 

During the analyses of artifacts, a general 
method of comparing proveniences at various sites 
across space and time was needed. Although not 
ideal, a time-space matrix was devised, based on 
absolute dates, architecture, and ceramic data 
(Cameron 1985:6; see Chapter 3). At that time, the 
dominant ceramics from excavated sites had been 
divided into 24 distinct periods, some of which 
overlapped. Three 100-year time ranges for the 
Bonito Phase were defined: the Early Bonito Phase 
(A.D. 920 to 1020), the Classic Bonito Phase (A.D. 
1020 to 1120), and the Late Bonito Phase (A.D. 1120 
to 1220) (Toll, Windes and McKenna 1980:96-97). 
These dating categories were used in this study as 
well. 

In several site reports, however, the principal 
investigators have used more detailed time frames, 
and Windes (1987:Volume III, Table 1.2) provides an 
update to the original dating sequences, based on 
recent studies. (See Chapter 1 for a correlation of 
dating periods.) 

Artifact Classes 

Based on a review of the literature, 20 ornament 
types were defined. These (and the abbreviations) 
include bulk mineral, unmodified; bulk mineral, 
modified; bead; bead blank; pendant (Pend.); inlay; 
effigy, human (Eff.); zoomorphic effigy, animal 
(Zoom.); strand dividers; debris (Deb.); other; 
unidentified (Unid.); pendant blank (PB, Pend. bl.); 
bracelet (Brae); ring; noseplug (NP); gaming piece 



Ornaments 1131 



(Gam. pc.); button; bell (copper); and tinkler (Tink.). 

Only beads and bead blanks need further 
clarification. A bead need not be whole; its condition 
was noted under a separate category and those beads 
that were nearly complete were listed under this 
classification (particularly several specimens from 
29SJ 629) rather than as bead blanks which were not 
nearly as complete. A bead blank is generally a 
specimen that is roughly discoid. It may have slight 
evidence of an attempt to make a perforation, but 
generally the perforation did not go through. 
Usually, the edges were not ground smoothly. 

Results 

Based on the classification system for minerals, 
their sources, time frame, evidence of manufacturing, 
and functional type (Mathien 1985) information was 
evaluated by time under four topical headings: 
procurement, production, distribution, and consump- 
tion, as well as compared with data from other 
excavations in Chaco Canyon, the San Juan Basin, 
and to a limited extent, other Anasazi areas. 

A variety of minerals, shells, seeds, and 
ceramics were utilized as ornaments by the Chaco 
Anasazi through time (Table 10.3). For some 
periods, there are few sites with ornaments and 
minerals. As a result, several of the periods were 
grouped as follows for purposes of discussion: 
Archaic-Basketmaker JJ (pre A.D. 500), Basketmaker 
m-Pueblo I (A.D. 500 to 900); Pueblo II-Pueblo III 
(A.D. 900 to 1250), and Navajo. The Pueblo II- 
Pueblo III period, however, was broken down into 
several shorter segments for the Chaco Project 
excavations (e.g., the Bonito Phase: Early— A.D. 
920 to 1020, Classic— A.D. 1020 to 1120, and 
Late— A.D. 1120 to 1220), and the Mesa Verde 
Phase— A.D. 1220 to 1320. When data from other 
excavated Anasazi sites are evaluated, however, they 
are discussed under larger time segments. 

Archaic-Basketmaker n (pre A.D. 500) 

Hayes (1981:21) defines the Early Archaic- 
Basketmaker II period in Chaco Canyon "from 
roughly 5000 B.C. to shortly after the time of 
Christ." Five sites assigned to this period were 
excavated (at least in part) and provide some infor- 
mation on the use of minerals and other materials: 



1) 29SJ 126. Probably the oldest site in the 
group; it had evidence of a Jay point and an indicator 
date of 3730 B.C. 

2) 29SJ 1156 (Atlatl Cave). Two separate 
occupations were identified. A San Jose point and a 
C 14 date of 2900 +, 136 would place the northwest 
midden in the Archaic period, but the C 14 dates of 
950 to 910 B.C. for the midden in the central section 
of the cave suggest a later Archaic occupation. 

3) 29SJ 1157 (Sleeping Dune and Ant Hill 
Dune). Located just in front of the entrance to Atlatl 
Cave, Mathews and Neller (1979) associated this site 
with the utilization of Atlatl Cave. A single C 14 date 
of A.D. 40 from a hearth on Ant Hill Dune, 
however, indicates that these were not contempor- 
aneous occupations. 

4) 29SJ 116. Originally classified as an 
Archaic site, the single C 14 date of A.D. 690 and the 
presence of sherds ranging from Basketmaker III 
through Pueblo III indicate a later occupation than the 
Archaic points found on the site. This site will be 
discussed under Basketmaker IH, even though Windes 
(personal communication, 1987) would not assign it 
to one specific period. 

5) 29SJ 1118. This is a quarry site that 
contained no ornamental artifacts. 

Based on the above, only the material recovered from 
sites 29SJ 126, 29SJ 1156, and 29SJ 1157 will be 
considered in this section. 

Procurement 

Table 10.4 summarizes data on ornaments and 
minerals from the Archaic-Basketmaker II sites. 
Only malachite and shell would have been imported; 
shale could have been obtained locally or from areas 
within the San Juan Basin. The shell is a freshwater 
species that could have been found in the San Juan 
Basin. The malachite was available around the 
peripheries of the San Juan Basin. Based on evidence 
from these three sites alone, there is little reason to 
suspect any long-distance trade networks; however, 
the entire San Juan Basin and its peripheries probably 
provided materials for the Archaic people who used 
Chaco Canyon. 



1132 Chaco Artifacts 

Table 10.3. Material types by sites by time frame. 



Time Frame in A.D. 



Material Type 


Arch. 


BMI1 


500- 
600 


500- 
700 


600- 
700 


600- 
820 


750- 
800 


700- 
820 


700- 
1020 


820- 
920 


800- 
1020 


820- 
1220 


Aragonite 
Argillite 


126 


1157 
1157 


- 


- 


- 


628 
116 


724 


628 
1360 


- 


- 


- 


- 



Azurite 



1659 299 628 



1360 



629 



Calcite 



423 1659 299 628 724 



630 



Chert, green 
Coal 
Copper 

Crystal, calcite 
Crystal, feldspar 
Crystal, quartz 
Evaporite 
Galena 



423 



1659 



627 



628 



Garnet 
Geothite 
Gyp site 



116 



1156 423 1659 299 628 724 721 



627 



Gypsum 



1659 



628 724 1360 



Hematite 



1156 
126 



1156 
1157 



423 1659 299 



628 
116 



724 1360 628 629 629 



Iron 

Jasper 

Jet 

Lead 

Lignite 



1659 



628 



1156 - 1659 299 628 724 721 628 627 

1360 



Limonite 



1156 



1156 
1157 



423 1659 299 



628 


724 


628 


628 


627 


116 




721 
1360 




629 
1360 



629 



Limonitic sandstone 



116 



Table 10.3. (continued) 



Ornaments 1133 



Time Frame in A.D. 



Chert, green 
Coal 
Copper 

Crystal, calcite 
Crystal, feldspar 
Crystal, quartz 
Evaporite 
Galena 

Garnet 

Geothite 

Gypsite 

Gypsum 

Hematite 

Iron 

Jasper 

Jet 

Lead 

Lignite 

Limonite 

Limonitic sandstone 



Material Type 


900- 

1000 


900- 
1050 


920- 
1020 


920- 
1000 


920- 
1120 


920- 
1220 


1000- 
1050 


1020- 
1120 


1020- 
1220 


1120- 
1220 


1200- 
1300 


Navajo 


Not 
Dated 


Aragonite 


627 


- 


1360 


- 


- 


389 


- 


- 


. 


389 


_ 






Argillite 


627 


" 


389 
629 
1360 


- 


627 
629 


389 
629 


627 


389 


389 


389 
391 
633 


633 


- 


389 
629 


Azurite 


627 




389 
625 
628 
629 
1360 




627 
629 


389 


627 


389 
423 


389 
391 


389 
391 
633 






389 


Calcite 


627 




299 
389 
391 
628 
629 
1360 




391 
627 
629 


389 


627 


389 
423 
721 


389 
391 


389 
391 




1613 


389 
627 
721 



627 



627 



627 



627 



627 



627 



627 



627 



627 



627 



389 



423 

389 
423 



389 



389 



633 



1360 - 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


389 


- 


- 


627 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


389 
629 


- 


- 


- 


- 


389 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


627 


389 


_ 


. 


_ 


_ 


_ 


389 
629 
1360 


627 


389 


627 


389 


- 


389 
633 


633 


- 


- 


629 
1360 


627 


389 


627 


- 


- 


633 


633 


1613 


389 
627 
721 


389 
391 
628 
629 
1360 


389 

627 
629 


389 
629 


627 


389 
423 


389 


389 
633 


633 


1613 





1613 



629 
1360 


627 


389 
629 


627 


- 


- 


391 


- 


- 


- 


- 


423 


- 


- 


389 
625 
629 
1360 


629 


389 


627 


389 
423 


389 


389 


299 
391 
629 
1360 


389 
391 
627 
629 


389 
629 


627 


389 
423 


389 


389 
633 



633 



633 



627 



423 



1134 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.3. (continued) 



Time Frame in A.D. 



Material Type 



Arch. 



BMII 



500- 


500- 


600- 


600- 


750- 


700- 


700- 


820- 


800- 


820- 


600 


700 


700 


820 


800 


820 


1020 


920 


1020 


1220 



Malachite 



1157 



423 



299 



628 



724 



1360 



Mica-muscovite 

Ocher, unidentified 

Opal 

Quartz, green with sandstone 

Quartzite 126 

Sandstone 

Schist 
Selenite 



1659 



423 



423 



1659 



1659 299 



116 



628 
116 


- 


" 


628 


* 


628 


- 


- 


- 


- 


628 


724 


299 
628 
721 
1360 


628 


627 
629 
1360 



629 



Sepiolite 
Serpentine 



628 



628 



Shale 



1156 



724 



628 



1360 



Shark's tooth 

Slate 

Specularite 

Steatite-soapstone 

Sulphur 

Turquoise 



628 

423 1659 299 628 724 299 628 627 629 

1360 629 

1360 



Bone 



1156 423 1659 299 628 

116 



628 627 



Ceramic 

Clay 

Claystone 

Glass 

Seed 

Wood, some petrified 

Glycymeris gigantea 



299 



1156 
1156 



1659 



628 724 



Choromytilus palliopunctatus 



Table 10.3. (continued) 



Ornaments 1135 



Time Frame in A.D. 



Material Type 



Malachite 

Mica-muscovite 

Ocher, unidentified 

Opal 

Quartz, green with sandstone 

Quartzite 

Sandstone 

Schist 
Selenite 



Sepiolite 
Serpentine 

Shale 



Shark's tooth 

Slate 

Specularite 

Steatite-soap stone 

Sulphur 

Turquoise 



900- 
1000 


900- 
1050 


920- 
1020 


920- 
1000 


920- 
1120 


920- 
1220 


1000- 
1050 


1020- 
1120 


1020- 
1220 


1120- 
1220 


1200- 
1300 


627 


627 


391 
629 
1360 


- 


391 
627 


389 


627 


389 
423 


389 
391 


389 
633 


633 


- 


- 


- 


627 


- 


389 


- 


389 


- 


389 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


633 


. 



Bone 




627 



627 



627 



627 



627 



627 



627 



1360 
389 



389 



1360 



1360 



389 



423 



627 389 627 389 

391 



389 



389 



627 



627 



389 


627 


391 


629 


629 




1360 





389 



627 



391 



299 


389 


389 


627 


389 


389 


389 


389 


391 


629 




423 


391 


391 


391 


627 










633 


628 


629 












629 














1360 














- 


629 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


628 


_ 


389 


_ 


_ 


. 




1360 














389 


389 


389 


627 


389 


389 


389 


391 


391 






423 






629 


627 












1360 


629 













389 


391 


389 


627 


389 


389 


389 


391 


627 


629 




391 


391 


391 


625 


629 






423 




629 


628 












633 


629 














1360 














389 


627 


389 


627 


389 


_ 


389 


625 


629 






423 






629 














389 


- 


- 


- 


389 


- 


- 


629 


_ 


_ 


_ 


_ 


. 


. 



389 


389 


389 


391 




391 


423 




633 



Navajo 



633 



633 



1613 



1613 



633 



633 



633 



1613 



1613 



633 



423 
627 



389 



627 
721 



389 
627 



627 



189 
627 
629 



1613 



633 



627 



Choromvtilus palliopunctatus 



389 



1136 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.3. (continued) 



Time Frame in A.D. 



Material Type 



Arch. 



BMII 



500- 


500- 


600- 


600- 


750- 


700- 


700- 


820- 


800- 


820- 


600 


700 


700 


820 


800 


820 


1020 


920 


1020 


1220 



Argopectin circularis 
Spondylus calcifer 
Spondylus princeps unicolor 
Chama echinata 
Trachycardium sp. 
Trachycardium panamense 
Haliotus cracherodii 



628 



Episcynia medialus 
Turitella leucostoma 
Cerithidea albondosa 
Strombus galeatus 
Oliva sp. 
Oliva incrassata 
Olivella dama 



423 



1659 



116 



724 299 



Conus perplexus 
Lymnaea sp. 

Lymnaea bulemoides Lea 
Freshwater clam 



126 



1659 



Anodonta sp. 
Unidentified shell 



126 



423 



299 



724 



Fossil shell 

Fossil shell impressions 

Fossil, other 



1157 



423 
423 



Site numbers presented in abbreviated form; 29SJ omitted. 



Table 10.3. (continued) 



Ornaments 1137 



Time Frame in A.D. 



Material Type 



900- 
1000 



900- 
1050 



Argopectin circularis 

Spondylus calcifer 

Spondylus princeps unicolor 

Chama echinata 

Trachycardium sp. 627 

Trachycardium panamense 

Haliotus cracherodii 627 

Episcynia medialus 627 

Turitella leucostoma 

Cerithidea albondosa 

Strombus galeatus 

Oliva sp. 

Oliva incrassata 

Olivella dama 627 

Conus perplexus 
Lymnaea sp. 

Lymnaea bulemoides Lea 
Freshwater clam 

Anodonta sp. 

Unidentified shell 627 

Fossil shell 

Fossil shell impressions 

Fossil, other 



920- 
1020 



389 
389 

389 



629 

629 

391 
629 

299 



389 
629 



389 
629 



920- 
1000 



920- 
1120 



920- 
1220 



1000- 
1050 



629 



627 



389 


- 


389 


- 


- 


627 


389 


627 



627 

389 

389 627 



627 389 
627 



389 



389 
389 



627 



1020- 
1120 



1020- 
1220 



389 



423 



389 



389 

423 



1120- 
1220 



1200- 
1300 



Not 
Navajo Dated 



627 



389 



391 
633 



389 389 
633 



627 



627 



423 



633 



391 633 
633 



627 



389 



1138 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.4. Archaic-Basketmaker II ornament and mineral materials. 



Material Type 


29SJ 126 
(open) 


29SJ 1156 
Middle 


29SJ 1156 

(shelter) 

Late 


29SJ 1157 
(open) Ca. 
A.D. 40 


Total 


Aragonite 


- 


- 


- 


1 Bead 


1 


Argillite 


1 Flake 


- 


- 


1 Modified 


2 


Bone 


- 


- 


10 Beads 


- 


10 


Gyp site 


- 


- 


90 Pieces 


- 


90 


Hematite 


1 Modified 


23 Pieces 


15 Pieces 


11 Pieces 


50 


Lignite 


- 


- 


1 Piece 


- 


1 


Limonite 


- 


41 Pieces 


25 Pieces 


11 (1 Pendant) 


77 


Malachite 


- 


- 


- 


1 Unmodified 


1 


Quartzite 


16 Flakes 


- 


- 


- 


16 


Seed 


- 


- 


1 Bead 


- 


1 


Shale 


- 


- 


1 Bead 


- 


1 


Shell (Anodanta) 


1 Pendant 


- 


- 


- 


1 


Fossil shell 


- 


- 


- 


12 


12 


impressions 












Wood 


- 


- 


1 Bead 




1 


No. of materials 


4 


2 


8 


6 


14 


Total items 


19 


64 


144 


37 


264 


Ornaments 


1 (5.2%) 





13 (9.0%) 


2 (5.4%) 


16 (6.1%) 


Soft minerals 
(pigments) 


1 (5.2%) 


64 (100%) 


130(90.3%) 


23 (62.2%) 


218 (82.6%) 



The wood bead and the seed bead, both from 
29SJ 1156, lend additional evidence of use of a 
variety of materials for ornaments during this period. 

Production 

At 29SJ 1157, one aragonite bead and one 
limonite pendant were recovered. Aragonite has a 
hardness of 3 1/2-4 on the Moh's scale and limonite 
4 1/2-5 (Northrop 1959). As noted in the ornament 
report for this site (Mathien 1985), the formation of 
this pendant could be attributed to natural forces. It 
was probably an unusual piece that was strung and 
used by the inhabitants of this site. 

The ten bone beads, the seed bead, shale bead, 
and wood bead from 29 S J 1156 probably were no 
more difficult to make than the aragonite bead from 
29SJ 1157. The freshwater shell (possibly Anodonta 
sp.) at 29SJ 126 had been fashioned into a pendant, 
but its presence there may or may not reflect a 
Basketmaker II occupational use because there are 
sherds of the Pueblo sequences at this site. Shell has 
a hardness of 3 1/2-4 on the Moh's scale (Feathers 
1989:580-581). 

Minerals that probably had been used for 



pigments include gypsite, hematite, and limonite. 
Pictographs at 29SJ 1156 include a limonitic yellow 
animal, hematitic red hands, and dark red human 
figures as well as some white figures. The lack of 
evidence of later occupation at this site may indicate 
that these figures could be associated with the 950 to 
910 B.C. midden, but there are difficulties with this 
assumption. Although the presence of pigments that 
match colors in the rock shelter is suggestive, the 
human figures are similar to those attributed to 
Basketmaker people (Guernsey and Kidder 1921:34). 
At present, however, there is no way to date with 
certainty any of the rock art at 29SJ 1156. 

Based on these data, it is suggested that the 
inhabitants of Chaco Canyon were making or using 
some ornaments (beads and pendants) by 950 to 910 
B.C. (at 29SJ 1156) and that by the time of Christ 
they were able to work with materials in the range of 
hardness of 3 1/2-4 or 5 on the Moh's scale. 
Manufacture of the bone beads included cutting and 
grinding of two ends. No tools for ornament 
manufacture were found at any of these sites; 
therefore, no information is available on where or 
how these ornaments were made. (For more 
information on bone bead manufacturing, see the 
discussion at the end of this chapter.) The simplicity 



Ornaments 1139 



of manufacture of the bone beads and the limonite 
pendant suggest that the technology was not highly 
sophisticated, but probably consisted of using tools 
that were available for other daily activities, e.g., 
butchering, cutting, drilling, etc. No particular skills 
were needed, and the work could have been done by 
a hunter-gatherer while sitting at a camp or resting 
during his or her daily activities. This lack of 
sophistication, however, was not true for all Anasazi 
during Basketmaker II (see discussion under 
Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I). 

Distribution and Consumption 

The limited number of ornaments (14 beads and 
2 pendants) at these three sites provide insufficient 
information to make inferences about distribution or 
consumption in Chaco Canyon during this early 
period. As it is difficult to estimate the number of 
people utilizing any of the sites excavated and 
discussed, it is impossible to do more than suggest 
their use of ornaments and minerals by these early 
inhabitants. 

Comparisons 

One tubular bone bead was recovered in Sheep 
Camp Shelter, located just outside Chaco Culture 
National Historical Park (Gillespie 1984:80). This 
bead is probably Late Archaic as it was found near 
the surface of Area B, which was radiocarbon dated 
at 2830 + 130 and 3030 + 130 B.P. (Gillespie 
1984:68). Review of reports on Archaic sites located 
just north of Chaco Canyon indicates that a number 
of recent excavations have recovered no ornamental 
artifacts in Archaic open air sites (Simmons 1982). 

Comparative data from other sites in the San 
Juan Basin are scarce. Data from the Navajo Indian 
Irrigation Project (NIIP) near Bloomfield, NM, 
indicate that although numerous open Archaic sites 
have been found and a number of them excavated, no 
ornaments or minerals were recovered (Elyea et al. 
1979; Sessions 1979). Nine sites discussed by 
Kirkpatrick (1980) had neither ornaments nor 
minerals among the recovered artifacts. Discussion 
with Al Simmons (personal communication, February 
1982) revealed no information on ornaments at sites 
from the Archaic period, neither in his surveys nor 
literature search. Ruth Henderson (personal 
communication, April 1982), however, excavated a 
Basketmaker II pithouse complex on the Gallegos 



Wash as part of the NIIP. This site had four 
structures in which a few bone and stone beads were 
recovered; all materials were available within the San 
Juan Basin. 

In an attempt to make comparisons within the 
larger Anasazi area, Jernigan's (1978) data and 
summaries were used as a baseline. He had reviewed 
the literature for the American Southwest and 
discussed only items for which he thought he had 
good temporal control. His reviews of "Big Game 
Hunters" and the "Desert Tradition" cover much of 
the earlier part of Hayes' Archaic period, as used 
here. In the Anasazi sequence, Jernigan (1978:151- 
196) dated Basketmaker II from 300 B.C. to A.D. 
450, which falls within the latter part of Hayes' 
Archaic-Basketmaker II Period. 

Jernigan (1978:7-9) found very little evidence 
for the use of jewelry among the "Big Game 
Hunters;" he listed only bone items from the Levi 
site and the Lindenmeier site and stated that these 
may not have been jewelry items. During the 
"Desert Tradition," however, a number of material 
types had been fashioned into ornaments (Jernigan 
1978:9-19). These include animal teeth, claws, and 
horns used as pendants; bone pendants, pectorals, 
tubes, discs, beads, and nasal ornaments; a calcium 
carbonate bead; a mica disc or ring; selenite; green 
slate discs and pendants; a green schist bead; steatite 
pendants; a serpentine ring; white marble/dolomite 
pendants; several species of shell (Olivella, Abalone. 
Laevicardium elatum, and freshwater mussel, all 
unworked except as necessary to string, and 
Glvcvmeris bracelet); cane tube beads; oak and bark 
pendants; gourd pendants; and leather discs. These 
ornaments were recovered from sites throughout the 
Southwest but were not from the Anasazi area. He 
discounted the evidence of use of one Glvcvmeris 
shell that he thought more accurately should be 
classified as an artifact of Mogollon sedentary 
occupation. The freshwater mussel might suggest 
that the freshwater shell pendant found at the Chaco 
site, 29SJ 126, may not be out of place temporally, 
but Jernigan's comments on the lack of purposeful 
working of shell (other than grinding off the top in 
order to string it) suggest that the extensive working 
would place the Chaco pendant into a later time 
frame. The grinding technology, on the other hand, 
must have been developed fairly early because 
Jernigan did list calcium carbonate and white marble- 
dolomite beads, materials of approximately the same 



1140 Chaco Artifacts 



hardness as shell. 

For the Basketmaker II period, Jernigan 
(1978:Tables 70-90) indicates a number of materials 
that were fashioned into a variety of beads, pendants, 
necklaces, pins, inlay, and mosaic pieces. These are 
summarized in Table 10.5. 

Among the Anasazi in the Kayenta area, many 
people were buried with beads of some type. 
Personal ornaments found in Cave I at Kinboko: 

Necklaces of various kinds were evidently 
much worn, as almost every undisturbed 
Basket Maker skeleton yet found by us 
was provided with one. We are inclined 
to believe, indeed, that the Cists of Cave 
I were plundered primarily for the beads 
accompanying the internments in them 
(Kidder and Guernsey 1919:161). 

The technology available during the early 
Basketmaker period was sufficiently advanced to 
allow the Anasazi to make fine jewelry. The lignite 
beads are numerous and particularly striking; some 
were highly polished and still retain their luster. 

There are two kinds of beads: the 
cylindrical and the hemispherical. The 
former are all made of black albatite, a 
phase of asphaltic shale; they are less than 
three-sixteenths inch [0.48 cm] in 
diameter, with fine straight bores with not 
more than one thirty-second inch [0.079 
cm] across. They vary somewhat in 
length, but are of uniform diameter and 
cylindrical in form. 

Hemispherical stone beads are much 
larger, averaging seven-sixteenths inch 
[1.11 cm] in diameter . . . Hematite and 
serpentine are the commonest materials, 
though the minerals mentioned above all 
occur. 

Most of the shell beads were made from 
olivellas by simply cutting off the end of 
the spire (Kidder and Guernsey 
1919:164). 

The lack of modification on shell may have 
been a stylistic preference because Kidder and 



Guernsey (1919:162-164) report that Haliorus shell 
pendants (which have a particular type of luster) were 
common and that other materials of probably 
comparable hardness were made into beads; these 
include lignite, limestone, serpentine, picrolite, 
hematite, albatite (shale), and calcareous tufa. A few 
hemispherical bone beads were also noted. If the 
distance to a source area indicated either greater 
access to unusual items by some traders or travelers, 
or if shells had a special meaning, retention of their 
significant characteristics could have been a visual 
marker for this concept in the society. 

In addition to ornaments listed with specific 
burials, Kidder and Guernsey (1919) noted the 
presence of a necklace of Pvrimidula strigosa var. 
cooperi (snail shells) and ear ornaments of lignite in 
Cave I at Kinboko and pendants of actinolitic schist, 
red jasper, and satin spar from Sayodneeche. 

At White Dog Cave, Guernsey and Kidder 
(1921:47) recovered one necklace of 71 lignite and 
limestone beads in a graduated form ranging from 3/8 
to 5/8 inch [0.95-1.58 cm] in size. Another necklace 
of shell beads included 18 Olivella shells incised with 
zigzag decoration. They also commented on the use 
of a hard black seed very similar to albatite after it 
had been cut down during manufacture, as well as 
two other types of seed beads: Onosmodium 
occidentale and a brown bead similar to Melia 
azederach. Quartz and alabaster were added to the 
material type list (Guernsey and Kidder 1921:48); 
these are also harder materials and testify to the 
ability of the early Anasazi to work minerals given 
their Stone Age technology. 

Description of a shell pendant from Broken 
Roof Cave indicates it was a "carelessly cut section 
of abalone shell, roughly triangular in shape and 
measuring 1 3/4 by 3/8 inches" [4.45 by 0.95 cm] 
(Guernsey 1931:68). It was found in Cist 1. 

Additionally, feathers were commonly used for 
ornamental purposes. Guernsey (1931:69) describes 
a number of them. 

Other excavated sites in the Kayenta area 
provide additional evidence of the use of ornaments. 

Haury (1945) reports on a Basketmaker II 
circular structure (20 ft [6.096 m] in diameter) and 
several small cists in Painted Cave, northeastern 



Ornaments 1141 



Table 10.5. Basketmaker II ornaments taken from J ernigan (1978). 



Figure 



Type 



Material 



Additional Comments 



70-71 



72-78 



Beads 



Pendants 



83-85 



86 

87 
89 
90 



Necklaces 



Misc. 

Bone pins 
Bone tubes 

Inlay 

Mosaic 



Stone 

Seed 

Shell 

(Abalone) 

Bone 

Shale 

Stone 

Turquoise 

Shell 

Whole shell 

Haliotus 

Bone 

Stone 

Jet 

Horn 

Stone 

Seed 

Shell 

Stone 

Jet 

Limestone 

Cord/lime 
Olivella /shell disk 
Jet/shell 



Turquoise 



Disks, subspherical and tubular 
Disk, saucer 



Tabular. Pg. 160 stone was gypsum and hematite; pg. 162 Glvcvmeris used 
from BMI1 on but never common until Pueblo IV. 
Glvcvmeris , Conus . Olivella 
Round sunburst and oval-shaped. 



Square and rectangular. 

Diamond, elongate, trapezoidal, triangular. 



Necklaces of single elements. Seeds included juniper and acorn cups. 
Olivella . snail, and bone. 



On wood cord and feathers. 



Date on this is questioned in text. 



Arizona. He removed three barrel-shaped beads 
made of compact mud rocks that were pink, gray, 
and pale green, with biconical perforations. Their 
diameters were 5/8, 7/16, and 1/2 inches [1.59, 1.11, 
and 1.27 cm] respectively. Haury said they were 
similar to beads from the Basketmaker II sites 
reported by Kidder and Guernsey. 

A disturbed Basketmaker II burial site in the 
Tsegi Canyon area near Rainbow Bridge, Monument 
Valley, was reported by Lockett and Hargrave 
(1953). There was a green pendant in with the burial 
in Cist 7. 

Gaumer (1937) reported on a child burial that 
probably dates to Basketmaker II in Desolation 
Canyon, Utah. There were 2,771 beads in eight coils 
(for a length of 11 feet [3.35 m]) found near the head 
of the burial. The beads were slate and white bone, 
with a single red stone bead. 

In DuPont Cave (Kane County, Utah), Nusbaum 
(1922:29-30) recovered a number of ornaments as 
follows: Cist 4 contents included a two-strand 



necklace of polished seeds and serpentine beads, and 
several sections of a string of seed beads. Later in 
the text, Nusbaum (1922:80-81) describes two 
necklaces recovered from Cist 30. The first 
consisted of two strings (26 inches long [0.66 m]) of 
brown Ephedra seeds (243 in all) that were held 
together by six large greenstone discoidal beads. The 
second necklace was a 55-foot [16.76 m] long string 
of Ephedra beads. Nusbaum also recovered a land 
snail shell bead and a saucer-shaped shell bead, 
presumed to be Olivella, in loose fill. 

Further east and 13 km north of Durango, CO, 
Morris and Burgh (1954) excavated the Talus Village 
(Ignacio 7: 101), a Basketmaker II house with at least 
seven floors. Floors 1,2, and 3 dated by tree-rings 
to the period from approximately A.D. 180 to 330. 
There were six cists in the pithouse, several with 
burials. Of a total of 34 burials found in the cists 
and crevice at this site, several were accompanied by 
grave goods. 

At the nearby North Shelter site (Ignacio 7:2A), 
a total of 47 burials were recovered during excavation 



1142 Chaco Artifacts 



of nine floors. In some instances, these burials were 
badly preserved as only four were found in cists. 
This site was tree-ring dated between A.D. 46-260 + . 
In their descriptions of the artifacts, Morris and 
Burgh (1954:57) reported they recovered five 
obsidian, seven quartzite, and 54 chalcedony drills at 
this site. 

Not more than a dozen drills in the lot are 
slender enough for making even the 
largest perforations in the hundreds of 
beads collected. The two pipes..., some 
pieces of perforated shell..., and a few 
other objects show the use of a drill, but 
such instances seem too few to account for 
the large number of implements. We 
suspect that the drill found its most 
frequent use in some industry of which 
evidence has not been recovered. 

Thus, a few stone drills may have been used in the 
manufacture of beads, but there is no certain proof. 
Morris and Burgh (1954:60) also suggested that five 
of their abraders may have been used for making 
ornaments. These abraders were of a grayish-black 
material and were variable in shape. 

Examination of 897 gaming pieces from this site 
indicated that there were three sets, and that a 
craftsman made each set. Gaming pieces tended to 
be scored on one side and were circular, rectangular, 
and lenticular in shape. 

A total of 31 bone tubes, used as beads and 
whistles, were generally ground on the severed ends. 
They were seldom square cut and neatly finished. 

Vegetal material included two necklaces of 
Juniperus monosperma seeds, plus hundreds of other 
isolated beads. Originally light brown in color, these 
seed beads turned black with luster after they had 
been worn. 

A variety of shells had been used. Most 
numerous were Olivella . In many cases, the spire 
had been either ground or hammered off, and the 
opposite end had been removed as well. In a few, 
only the spires had been removed sufficiently to allow 
stringing. Other shell genera that were identifiable 
include Abalone and Conus, but these were few in 
number. 



Among the minerals used for beads and 
pendants, lignite was the most predominant. Gray, 
pink, light green, and dark green stone beads were 
recovered. The pink and gray were identified as 
shale. In their discussion of the necklace with 107 
stone beads that accompanied Burial 29, Morris and 
Burgh (1954:72) note the sizes graded from small to 
large. Measurements of the lignite beads ranged 
from 8.5 to 14 mm in diameter, and 5-5.5 mm in 
height, with thicknesses of 4-9 mm. Gray /pink beads 
ranged from 1-1.8 cm in diameter. All perforations 
were bi conical and ranged from 4-4.5 mm in 
diameter at the face of the stone. 

Other Basketmaker II sites dating to the Los 
Pinos Phase include LA 2605, a village on a tributary 
of the Pine River (Fenega and Wendorf 1956), where 
Olivella and Haliotus shells, bird bone beads, and 
powdered hematite were recovered. In the same 
general area south of Durango, Eddy and Dickey 
(1961) found a bird bone bead and evidence of red 
and light green stains (probably hematite and 
malachite) on a paint palette. Southwest of 
Montrose, Hurst (1942) recovered a red and white 
sandstone bead blank, tubular bone beads, and seed 
beads in Tabeguache Cave. 

Conclusions 

Review of the literature provides a broader 
perspective on use of ornaments and minerals than 
did the limited data from Chaco Canyon and the San 
Juan Basin. Several inferences can be made. 

The earliest inhabitants of the American 
Southwest used very little jewelry. According to 
Jernigan (1978), only bone items were utilized by 
"big game hunters." 

During the Archaic Period, however, a number 
of materials were fashioned into beads, pendants, 
discs, and rings. Included among the materials were 
marine shells available in the Gulf of California; 
these were transported inland to sites in Arizona and 
Nevada. Green ornaments (slate and schist) were 
also made by hunter-gatherers; the significance of the 
color, however, is not determined. Technology was 
sufficient to fashion beads and pendants from 
materials as hard as dolomite; however, shells and 
bones were not extensively shaped. Distribution of 
ornaments, based on the available data, indicates 



Ornaments 1 143 



some differences between sites in Arizona and 
Nevada versus those in New Mexico. In Chaco 
Canyon and the San Juan Basin, Middle Archaic sites 
had only bone beads, and a possible freshwater shell 
pendant. Not until the Late Archaic do seed, shale, 
and wood beads appear in the archeological record. 
Soft minerals were utilized, possibly as pigments. 

By Basket maker II, a number of additional 
material types were utilized in what would later be 
the Kayenta and Mesa Verde Anasazi areas, including 
the first evidence of turquoise (Table 10.5). The 
technology in northeastern Arizona and southwestern 
Colorado had been developed to a point that allowed 
creation of small lignite beads. There may have been 
part-time specialists based on evidence from Ignacio 
7. 2 A; Morris and Burgh (1954) suggest that three 
sets (a total of 897 gaming pieces) were made by 
three craftsmen. The burials at sites from these two 
areas suggest that everyone had access to some 
ornaments; however, where sex and age were 
reported, the necklaces found with females and 
children may indicate differential use based, in part, 
on age or sex. 

Data from the San Juan Basin and Chaco 
Canyon do not provide information for similar 
production and distribution. Here, few material types 
were used and few ornaments were found during 
Basketmaker II. There may be two explanations for 
this. First, the majority of the excavated sites from 
the San Juan Basin are open rather than cave or 
house sites. These sites are less likely to have been 
used for habitation or long-term camps. No burials 
have been found. The differences could be due to 
sampling. Second, there may be a cultural difference 
between areas. Scheick (1983a, 1983b) notes that the 
area around Gallup, NM, has evidence of mixed 
archeological cultural remains that span the entire 
time sequence from Archaic through Pueblo III. 
Differences between the Oshara-Cochise of the 
Archaic, and the later Mogollon-Anaszai may be part 
of a continuum that separates Zuni-Rio Grande 
pueblo peoples today. This possibility of a long- 
standing interface between different groups needs 
much further investigation. 

Basketmaker III-PueMo I 

Excavations were carried out at nine sites in 
Chaco Canyon that have components dating between 
A.D. 500 and 920 and from which some ornaments 



were recovered (Table 10.6). Because the dates 
overlap in this Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I continuum, 
there are few data for each discrete period. Periods 
are lumped into the broader categories for 
comparative purposes. Three sites had components 
that fell within Basketmaker III, two within the 
Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I transition, and six within 
Pueblo I. Data on material types by site and time are 
summarized in Table 10.6. 

Basketmaker III 

Three excavated pithouse villages that had 
components dating ca A.D. 400/500 to 725/750 were 
assigned to this period: 

1) 29SJ 423: Material from the great kiva, 
trash area 2, and the central pit of Pithouse A was 
assigned to the A.D. 500s (McKenna 1986; Windes 
1975a). 

2) 29SJ 1659 (Shabik'eshchee Village): This 
site, excavated by Roberts (1928, 1929) and re- 
excavated in part by Hayes (1975) during the Chaco 
Project, produced ornaments and minerals that can be 
dated between A.D. 500 and 700. Material from the 
court, kiva and associated Pithouse C, and Pithouse 
X, however, falls within the Pueblo I period 
(McKenna 1986). Truell (1986:218) states that based 
on architecture, House C and the Protokiva house 
date to the late A.D. 700s to 800s. Her House C 
complex includes the court and Bins 12-15. Bullard 
(1962) also assigned House C to the Pueblo I period. 
Thus, six alabaster beads, one turquoise pendant, and 
six turquoise mosaic pieces may be later, but these 
ornaments are not out of place in Basketmaker III 
(e.g., compare types of turquoise objects with those 
from 29SJ 423 [Table 10.6]). 

3) 29SJ 299: Pithouse A and Pithouse D had 
ornaments that were dated to the A.D. 600s (Loose 
1979; Windes 1976a). 

Procurement : Comparison of Table 10.6 with 
Table 10.4 reveals that quartz and calcite crystals, 
jasper, sandstone, selenite, talc, and turquoise, plus 
new species of shell are being collected and used by 
Basketmaker III people in Chaco Canyon. Several of 
these materials (jasper, Olivella, and possibly 
Glycymeris) were documented by Jernigan (1978) for 
earlier inhabitants of the American Southwest, but 
had not appeared in excavated Chaco sites until 



1144 Chaco Artifacts 



1 



© 

o 




0\ 

ON 


VO 




<S 


Q 




c/5 


< 






© 

o 






V* 


© 






o 




Q 


r~- 




< 




Ot 



1 



1 1 

& 13 



1 

2 



i 

2 



1 

2 



S3 



■s 



CL, D. BQ 



1 



oaD 



a "8 "8 

"O "O -3 S 
HI* 



« C 

ttCU 



a 1 ? 



I 



1 

2 


. o 
"9 § 


Iftj 

&2 


3s « 

-a u 
9 2 

pao 


-« o 


VO —. 



si "8 

"81 



s 
I 



I 



1 



"3 
U 



| 

5 



1 





s 








^J 


•e 




Si 


s 




o 
> 


E 


'33 


8 
1 


u S 


i2 


o 


o 


o 



I 



I 



"8 ss"8 

& 2» 



hi"? 

oi ■§ 

25 £ 

<S V) fS to -h 






1 

s 



1 1 



&8P 



i 3 S 



§ §"8:t: 

1 "ill 

£ £t§2 



II 



| 



1 



c 

I 



a 

•a 

Ml 






1 



•a "8 

"Si 



II 



"8 

2 



© a 
2s 



"m 1 =3 

Qp a 



2 = 



3 



O «M 



O u 



2i 

■a 

o 
E 






I I 



I I 



s 



ss"8 
■a a 

° a 
2& 



*1 

"9 § 

c § 

£:= 



I I 



J 

2 



"8 



11 



J- ' ^ 

•s la 

2 O 3 



SI 1 
|| l 



Ornaments 1 145 





co 


o 

0-4 




© 

© 
oo 




Q 

< 


CO 

On 



"*? 


<; 


*> 




3 




c 


V) 


•« 


8 


r; 


»»-> 


© 




,0 


Q 




< 


CO 




o 




^» 




■a 


| 


•Q 


•c 


£ 


a. 



o 


1-^ 


o 


CO 


00 


Os 


o 


<N 


o 




vo 




Q 




< 


00 




*> 




>— i 




CO 




O 




<N 



1 



nl 

|i 

SP 



o <<J 
II 

^2 



1 



II 

— ,0 



? i 






p 



1 



■ i i i i 



i i 



i i 



hi 









5 "9 



s ° 



"si 

Sp 










2 








o 


1 




3 


ts 


"1 


S 


_o 


J= 


1 


J> 


& 


■3 


a 


o 


"3 


s 


JS 


3 


CO 


co 


co 


CO 


CO 



38 



So 



i i 



i i i i 



C "O "O -a 

5 c « o 

Da,«S 



| 



* 
£ 


to 

•a 
a 
o 

n 


o 

•o -a 

CQ3 


~H 


I <s 


| -H -H 



c* 



&.&. 



li 



^ 



"93 

SP 



* 



c 

-a "> 



1 



u ■ « 72 

8 III 



o 

CA 

<n E 

^ s 



en c. 



■o 
■3 

P 



£ S 



«i 2 






*^ JS o 9 jo *? w >fi 

o83Sp£ mSo 

<S •* rn C» »* <S-h — 



c<> 



■s 



o 

3 

ST 



I 



! 



PI 



dp 



:s=3 
a «> 
P-S 



1 

p 



11 

CA CU 

lb .3 



1146 Chaco Artifacts 



s: 


V) 


c> 




^ 







< 


(6 




o 




*«« 




CD 


T3 




O 


^Q 


X 


S 


4) 



© 




SO 




CI 




»— 1 




H^ 




on 




Os 




<N 


' j 


Os 




c^ 




SO 




N-S 




on 




o> 




fM 




r- 




n 




sO 




H^ 




on 




Os 




<N 




OC 




<N 




SO 




"-. 




on 




Os 




(N 




O 




so 




CI 




— 




H^ 




00 




Os 




(N 




* 




<N 




r~ 




— » 




00 




Os 




<s 




Os 




Os 




cs 




H^ 




oo 




Os 




(S 




SO 








*H 




•— » 




on 




Os 




<N 




00 




C~) 




SO 




^> 




on 




o> 




<N 




Os 




Os 




Ol 




<—> 




on 




Os 




<N 




Os 




sr, 




SO 




— H 




H^ 




on 




Os 




ri 




m 


"S; 


ri 




1- 


Si 


^s 
00 


l=: 


Os 


^ H : 


<N 






m! 




o: 




■s; 




O; 


TO 




■c 


-_T! 




en! 

o: 
U.: 



SR 



«£ 



^ci 3-s 










IS 


VO 




00 


n 




£SJ 






00 


w 


p** *-s 












3 






*£ 


«* 


4> 






<s 


i| 


■* 




2 2 




CO 

C9 

•s 

a 
o 
















* 


tfc 


« 






"1 


VS. 


0- 
3 






i~ 


csi 


o 


t 


00 


.«<*> 
O s**' 


/■^ 


1 

5 

i 








SO 


5 


Os 


© 

SO 


oo 9 


OsCsJ, 


E 
1 



° 

SO 



2 8 



s-^ 




c 


« 


u 

Cu 


2^ 




s 


^■^ 


vri s_^ 


'5 

3 










2" 






3 













a 


/"*S 


^v 


o 


Ifc 


<£ 


•o 


00 


«s 


s 


<s© 


r- ci 


CQ 


<srj. 


sOsg, 


Ss 






cs 

f 

B 






3 


I* 


*£ 


00 


© 


3 


©Os 


)2<* 


x 


w><s 


--VO 


*io 



$£ 



— |! ■* 



— s© -*' 



SI 



_ © 



II 



Ornaments 1 147 



Basketmaker III. There was an increase in the 
number of material types brought from other areas of 
the San Juan Basin (azurite, quartz crystal, 
talc/soapstone). This may indicate increased 
interaction among the inhabitants of the basin, 
expressed though economic exchange networks, or it 
may represent increased search for and use of 
pigments and ornaments by residents of the canyon 
for either ritual or decorative purposes. The presence 
of turquoise indicates that procurement networks had 
been extended beyond the San Juan Basin, and the 
two shell species indicate procurement networks 
reached the Gulf of California. This suggests that by 
Basketmaker III, the Chaco Anasazi were part of the 
long-distance trade networks that provided shell to 
Basketmaker II Anasazi in northwestern Arizona and 
southwestern Colorado. 

Production : The artifact types that were found 
during Basketmaker III include bracelet fragments, 
possibly mosaic inlays, gaming pieces, and other 
worked forms, in addition to the beads and pendants 
found during earlier periods (Figure 10.1). Most of 
the beads are still made from bone; a group of bone 
beads from 29SJ 299 and those at 29SJ 1659 show 
that most of the ends were cut evenly rather than 
jaggedly, which suggests more care in their 
manufacture (for a more complete discussion of bone 
bead manufacturing, see discussion at the end of this 
chapter). The Olivella dama shells at 29SJ 423 were 
ground to various degrees, indicating more than 
expedient grinding alone. Discoid beads made from 
several materials (calcite, turquoise, lignite) appear in 
the Chaco area and are the standard form. The two 
turquoise beads from site 29SJ 299 were not 
exceptional; one was crudely made, and both were 
made from greenish turquoise (5 G 8/1 on the 
Munsell chart). The descriptions of the calcite and 
lignite discoid beads from 29SJ 1659 were not 
detailed, but Roberts' illustration (1929:Plate 30) 
shows that the manufacturing of calcite-alabaster 
beads was well done. The lignite tube bead (Roberts 
1929:Plate 30) has rough ends and does not indicate 
superior craftsmanship. 

Bracelet fragments indicate these ornaments 
were nicely cut from Glycymeris shells. There is no 
evidence of etching or design work, a contrast to the 
well-known Hohokam decorating techniques already 
present by the Colonial Period, A.D. 550 to 900 
(Jernigan 1978:63, Figure 20). Who made these 
bracelets is uncertain; they may have been imported 



as complete bracelets because no workshop areas or 
tools have yet been discovered in Chaco Canyon. 

Pendants and pendant blanks are generally 
tabular pieces; their shapes vary from rectangular 
with rounded comers to trapezoidal and oval (e.g., at 
29SJ 1659). One unusual non-tabular triangular 
malachite piece from 29SJ 299 had a notch/groove 
and numerous striations (Figure 10. l[l'j). 

A single disk was found on the surface of 29SJ 
1659; due to the greater number found after A.D. 
700, it may be a Pueblo I artifact, as there are 
discoid objects found during that time period in other 
Chaco Canyon sites. 

The gaming piece from 29SJ 299 was flat, long 
and narrow; one edge was straight and one rounded; 
there were numerous linear marks on it. The gaming 
piece from 29SJ 1659 was also a flat, oval piece that 
had striations on its surface. 

Tesserae or inlay tended to be rectangular. At 
29SJ 423, the three turquoise pieces varied in size but 
were about 0.13-0.15 cm thick. This may reflect the 
thickness of the turquoise veins from which they were 
cut; many of the veins still visible at the Cerrillos 
Mining District are very similar. 

One unusual piece of bone was recovered at 
29SJ 423. It was flat, rectangular and saw-toothed 
on the two side edges with a groove running up and 
down the middle (Figure 10.1[k]). The saw-tooth 
pattern was found on a horn pendant at White Dog 
Cave (Jernigan 1978:171, Figure 78) during 
Basketmaker II, but here there were numerous teeth 
that were not deeply notched. The piece from 29SJ 
423 has four and five notches on the sides and does 
not resemble any artifacts described or drawn by 
Jernigan. 

A broken tabular piece of sandstone from 29SJ 
423 that had been notched on one short side has no 
known function (Figure 10.1(j]). 

The materials that were fashioned into 
ornaments required more energy expenditure than the 
bone and limonite found during the Archaic- 
Basketmaker II period. If one assumes, however, 
that the aragonite and shell items found in sites dating 
to the earlier period are correctly classified in the 
chronological sequence, the increase in energy 



1148 Chaco Artifacts 




\n> 



© 

d 









Q 




J 











n 



m 



Ornaments 1 149 



Figure 10.1 . Ornament types from Basketmaker Ul-Pueblo I sites in Chaco Canyon. 

a) Bone beads from 29SJ 299 (FS 173A). 

b) Olivella dama bead from 29SJ 423 (FS 417). 

c) Olivella dama bead from 29SJ 1659, Shabik'eshchee Village (USNM 340823). 

d) Calcite/alabaster beads from 29SJ 1659, Shabik'eshchee Village (USNM 40875). 

e) Lignite bead from 29SJ 1659, Shabik'eshchee Village (USNM 340840). 

f) Glvcvmeris bracelet fragment from 29SJ 1659, Shabik'eshchee Village (USNM 340856). 

g) Freshwater mussel disk from 29SJ 1659, Shabik'eshchee Village (USNM 340867). 
h) Bone gaming piece from 29SJ 299 (FS 173B). 

i) Haliotus cracherodii inlay from 29SJ 423 (FS 57). 

j) Sandstone piece from 29SJ 423 (FS 124). 

k) Bone piece from 29SJ 423 (FS 213). 

1) Malachite pendant from 29SJ 299 (FS 396). 

m) Haliotus pendant from 29SJ 1659, Shabik'eshchee Village (USNM 340803). 

n) Turquoise pendant from 29SJ 1659, Shabik'eshchee Village (USNM 340833). 

o) Turquoise pendant from 29SJ 1659, Shabik'eshchee Village (USNM 340805, 74 04 75). 

p) Freshwater shell pendant from 29SJ 1659, Shabik'eshchee Village (USNM 340814). 

FS numbers indicate artifact is part of the National Park Service collections; USNM number indicates this belongs 
to the U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution). 



expenditure is not large. Of the materials made into 
an ornament during this period, turquoise was the 
hardest at 5-6 on the Moh's scale and would have 
required the most time to manufacture into 
ornaments. The remainder of the ornaments were 
made from materials which ranged from 1 1/2-4 on 
Moh's scale, the latter being the same range noted 
for the Archaic-Basketmaker II period. 

At none of these sites is there any indication 
that ornaments were made within the areas where 
found. The manufacturer may have been someone 
outside the canyon, or our sample may be biased. 
With limited data, it is not possible to specify where 
production was carried out; but the two calcite and 
one malachite pendant blanks at 29SJ 299 and the few 
pieces of turquoise that were slightly modified at 
29SJ 299, 29SJ 423, and 29SJ 1659 suggest that 
inhabitants may have made their own pieces if we 
assume that the presence of modified and unmodified 
pieces relate to manufacturing rather than placement 
of offerings, lost material, etc. The variation in 
quality of workmanship seen on these ornaments 
suggests more than one maker. 

Distribution and Consumption . Due to the few 
ornaments present in the Basketmaker III components 
of these three sites, no inferences are made about 
their use during this period. Some jewelry was made 
and used but little was found in a context that points 



to how it was used by the population. Roberts 
(1929:143-144) noted that only three of 14 burials at 
Shabik'eshchee Village were accompanied by grave 
goods, e.g., ceramics. In one burial, a bowl was 
found in the rubbish from houses with three pieces of 
rubbed azurite and six pieces of rubbed red ocher. 
Two bone tubes were the only ornaments that 
appeared with one of the skeletons that was buried on 
the knoll just northwest of the main site. Roberts 
attributes the structures on this knoll (the protokiva 
and House X) to the second phase of occupation of 
this site, which Bullard (1962) and Truell (1986) 
place in the Pueblo I period. 

At 29SJ 423, three turquoise pieces were found 
in Posthole A, the roof support for the great kiva. 
Between the benches were two turquoise and three 
shell pieces; below the lower bench were two 
turquoise and two shell pieces. These artifacts may 
indicate the beginning of a custom of placing 
offerings in kivas during construction or remodeling. 
Excavations at Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954; Pepper 
1920; catalog cards from the American Museum of 
Natural History and the U.S. National Museum) and 
at Chetro Ketl (Hewett 1936; W. Reiter 1933; J. 
Woods 1934) revealed numerous caches or offerings 
of shell, turquoise and other materials in kivas and 
great kivas in similar proveniences during the Classic 
Bonito Phase (A.D. 1020 to 1120). 



1 150 Chaco Artifacts 



Basketmaker IH-Pueblo I Transition 

Two sites assigned to the Basketmaker III- 
Pueblo I transition period were excavated during the 
Chaco Project: 

1) 29SJ 628. Some material from six pithouses 
and two cists was dated to the period A.D. 600 to 
820 (Truell 1976). 

2) 29SJ 116. This open site was basically a 
lithic scatter with material from several periods. 
Because a single radiocarbon date indicated the use of 
Hearth 1 at about A.D. 690, the minerals and 
ornaments were dated within the time period A.D. 
600 to 800. All the materials in this study, except a 
single garnet, were similar to those found in other 
Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I sites. Windes (personal 
communication 1985) considers all but the hearth to 
be Archaic in date. Yet the garnet is more indicative 
of later use (see below). 

Procurement . As might be expected when one 
compares an open site with an architectural site, there 
are some differences in the types of materials found. 
There is a greater variety of material at 29SJ 628 
than at 29SJ 116, but each site revealed materials that 
were not present at the other. Table 10.4 and Table 
10.6 indicate that the only new materials recovered in 
Chaco Canyon sites were garnet, schist, serpentine, 
sulphur, and Haliotus cracherodii. The garnet from 
29SJ 116 may be from a later period, as other 
garnets are not found at Chaco Canyon sites until a 
later date, e.g., at Pueblo Bonito (Mathien 
1985:Appendix C, Tables 23a and 23 b; Judd 1954). 
Although the schist, serpentine, and Haliotus from 
29SJ 628 are new to the list of materials found in a 
datable context in excavated Chaco Canyon sites, 
these materials were found during earlier periods in 
other parts of the Anasazi world (see Archaic- 
Basket maker II section above). To my knowledge, 
sulphur has not been reported previously. It can be 
found locally and was among the minerals recovered 
from Pueblo Bonito (Brand et al. 1937:62). The 
presence of Halitous shell indicates the ability of the 
Chaco Anasazi to obtain shells from the Pacific Coast 
and not just from the Gulf of California. Other 
Basketmaker HI people at Prayer Rock (Morris 1980) 
were also using Haliotus shell for pendants. 

Production . Neither of these sites provide 
evidence of definitive workshop areas for the 



manufacture of ornaments. At sites 29SJ 628, 
however, we find the first evidence of fashioning 
argillite into an ornamental form. Although argillite 
was found earlier on Archaic-Basketmaker II sites, 
sites where we have better time control suggest an 
A.D. 720 to 820 date for its use as a decorative 
material. If the 251 flakes found across the trenches 
at 29SJ 116 represent waste material, this open-air 
site may have been a processing area for this 
material; however, the lack of abraders or other tools 
associated with manufacturing of ornaments limits our 
interpretation of the processing activity. 

Balls and disks are the new artifact forms that 
were recovered at these two sites. Balls were 
fashioned from azurite, limomtic sandstone, and 
sandstone and show little evidence of work other than 
shaping. Limomte, quartzite, and sandstone were 
fashioned into flat disks; only the quartzite piece and 
one limonite disk at 29SJ 116 were finely shaped, the 
other sandstone ones were crudely shaped. An 
earlier freshwater clam disk had been recovered 
between A.D. 500 and 700 at 29SJ 1659 by Roberts 
(1929). 

The single garnet found at 29SJ 116 may be an 
anomaly. There had been several attempts at drilling 
this artifact, but none were successful. Garnet is 
harder than turquoise, 6 1/2-7 1/2 on Moh's scale 
versus 5-6 for turquoise, which may indicate the 
limits of the Anasazi drilling technology or their 
unwillingness to invest the additional labor needed to 
complete the work of modifying this material. 

Distribution and Consumption . There is too 
little available information to make inferences about 
distribution and consumption. 

Pueblo I 

Six of the excavated sites had components 
specific to this period. 

1) 29SJ 299: Four rooms (Room 12, Room 
13, Room 14, and Room 15), a ramada, and the floor 
and floor fill of Pithouse E are assigned to the A.D. 
700 to 820 period. Windes (1976a, personal com- 
munication, 1986) dates them at A.D. 800. 

2) 29SJ 628. A limited amount of material 
from Pithouse F and Pithouse G was assigned to the 
A.D. 700 to 820 period (Truell 1976). 



Ornaments 1151 



3) 29SJ 724. Limited material from Pithouse 
A and Pithouse C was deposited in the A.D. 700 to 
920 period (Windes 1976b). 

4) 29SJ 1360. Room 2 and Room 3 of House 
1, the bench of Kiva C of House 2, the trash mound, 
and Level 3 of the test trench provided material from 
A.D. 700 to 820. House 1, Room 4, and Level 3 of 
the test trench contain material from A.D. 820 to 920 
(McKenna 1984). 

5) 29SJ 627. Pithouse C, Layer F, and Room 
9, Subfloor 3, and Floor 4, provided material dated 
A.D. 820 to 920 (Truell 1992). 

6) 29SJ 629. Trash in "Room 4;" Trash 
Mound Layer 1; Grids 59, Layers 1-2; Grid 64, 
Level 3; Grid 65, Levels 4-6; and Test 99, Level 1 
north of Room 1-3, provided material from the A.D. 
820 to 920 period. Windes (1993, personal 
communication 1986) places the dates closer to A.D. 
900. 

Although Pueblo I occupations were reported for 
House C at 29SJ 1659 (Bullard 1962) and at 29Mc 
184 (only test pits were excavated in 1975 by T. C. 
Windes), no ornaments or minerals were recovered 
from these proveniences. In the court and kiva areas 
at Shabik'eshchee Village (29SJ 1659), however, 
Roberts (1929) recovered six alabaster-calcite beads, 
one turquoise pendant, and six turquoise mosaic 
pieces. These probably fall within the late A.D 700s 
to 800s (Truell 1986). 

Procurement . No new materials are found from 
the components dated to this period. There are no 
shell ornaments and only a few pieces of turquoise 
among the artifacts recovered. This could be 
attributable to the small sample. All but the azurite 
and turquoise were available from the local Chaco 
Canyon area. 

Production . Most of the unmodified or partially 
modified material was soft and may have been used 
for pigment (except for turquoise, shale, and bone). 
One effigy figure was recovered at 29SJ 1360. Made 
of limonite, it was anthropomorphic in shape and 
relatively large (7.41 cm high)(McKenna 1984:303, 
Figure 5.15). No new artifact forms were recovered. 

Distribution and Consumption . The scarcity of 
artifacts found on house floors or with burials 



precludes statements on these topics. 

Comparisons 

Other excavated sites in Chaco Canyon that 
provide data on ornaments and minerals for the 
period A.D. 500 to 900 are few. And in most cases, 
few artifacts were recovered. 

At 29SJ 1657 (Half House), an eroded pithouse 
below 29SJ 1659 (Shabik'eshchee Village), Adams 
(1951) reports a bracelet fragment from the fill and 
some pieces of lignite in a rectangular pit and a 
subfloor firepit. It is doubtful the lignite recovered 
in this site was used for ornamental purposes. The 
site is dated to the A.D. 700s. 

Judd (1924) excavated two pithouses located 
along the Chaco Wash in the main part of the 
canyon. In Pithouse 1, dated as Basketmaker III- 
Pueblo I and located just east of Casa Rinconada, no 
ornaments or minerals were reported. From Pithouse 
2 (29SJ 1678), a mile east of Pueblo Bonito, only one 
Glvcymeris shell bracelet fragment was recovered in 
the material that had fallen into the wash. Although 
Roberts (1938) suggests it was occupied ca. A.D. 
777, Windes (personal communication, 1980) places 
it in the A.D. 820 to 920 period. 

Another possible A.D. 820 to 1020 component 
is Pithouse A at Be 51 (29SJ 395). Here, four 
Glvcymeris bracelet fragments, a shale bead, five 
turquoise, three azurite-malachite, and one quartz 
crystal piece were reported and/or found among the 
collections (Kluckhohn and Reiter 1939). 

Based on this review, there seems to be little 
evidence of jewelry use by the inhabitants of Chaco 
Canyon prior to the A.D. 900s. Although materials 
such as turquoise and shell indicate participation in a 
trade network that extends far beyond the San Juan 
Basin, there is no evidence to suggest who made 
jewelry or if there were any jewelry -making 
specialists. 

A brief examination of some of the published 
literature from elsewhere in the Anasazi world was 
not comprehensive, but it does provide some 
information on the use of ornaments during the 
Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I period. 

Whitten (1982) presents data on the Crawford 



1 152 Chaco Artifacts 



site, a Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I site with two 
pithouses and several features, located on the 
southwestern edge of the Muddy Water community 
near Crownpoint. The site was dated between A.D. 
500 and 800, probably mid 700s, and no ornaments 
were reported. 

Near Tohatchi, Bui lard and Cassidy (1956) and 
Olson and Wasley (1956) excavated part of an 
extensive Basketmaker El-Pueblo I settlement as part 
of a pipeline route. At LA 2507, only one tubular 
bone bead was found on the floor of Pithouse A. 
Two other bone beads were reported, but exact 
proveniences were not given. They were probably 
from other structures that were excavated. No 
ornaments were reported with the burials recovered. 

Further south in the Red Mesa Valley, Gladwin 
(1945) reports the only ornaments found during the 
White Mound Phase (ca. A.D. 730 to 900) were 
three single turquoise pendants (Plate XVII) and a 
stone bird effigy. 

At Window Rock, Fehr et al. (1982) excavated 
AZ-P-24-1, a Pueblo I-II site. One red shale pendant 
in "typical bird representation" was recovered in a 
small circular basin-shaped pit located several feet 
from any of the structures. 

In the Whitewater District, near Allantown, AZ, 
Roberts (1939, 1940) excavated a number of struc- 
tures in the vicinity of a later Chacoan structure. 
Unit 2 was a surface structure with six rooms, 
several shelters, and a subterranean chamber or kiva. 
Room 10, which Roberts considered a storage room, 
had many beads on the floor in a single group. All 
were shell— some pink, white, and red, with a few 
orange. Most were discoid, but some were figure- 
eight-shaped. Roberts estimated a total of about 
9,000 beads or 37'4" when strung. A few pieces of 
azurite and malachite and a few turquoise fragments 
were also recovered. Unit 2 was considered to be an 
early Developmental Pueblo village; however, as 
Roberts has commented, there is considerable Chaco 
influence in this area during the Developmental 
Period, and these ornaments (plus the burial material) 
may relate to the Bonito Phase of Chaco rather than 
the Basketmaker Hi-Pueblo I Phases under discussion 
in this section. 

In the Petrified Forest, at Twin Butte site, 
Burial 2 of 8 found in Test Trench 2 had 376 pieces 



of worked turquoise and nine pieces of red sandstone 
or argillite, along with several hundred strung shell 
beads and an abalone pendant (Wendorf 1953:138, 
155). Wendorf thought Burial 2 may represent a 
craftsman rather than a high status individual. This 
is the earliest evidence I have found to suggest a 
craftsperson who worked with ornaments. Between 
burials 5 A and 6 in Test Trench 1, only one 
turquoise pendant was recovered. 

At Site 264 in the Awatovi District, Woodbury 
(1954:147) records three pieces of turquoise mosaic 
inlay dating to Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I. One was 
from Room 8; two were from Room 16, one was on 
the floor and one was on the lower bench, both at the 
west side of the room. Lacking perforations, they 
were similar in size to turquoise used for inlay. All 
three were a poor grade of turquoise. A turquoise 
pendant was also recovered; no provenience was 
given. A creamy white limestone pendant fragment 
was also found on the bench of Room 16. Woodbury 
(1954:149) notes that pendants of stone seem to be 
more abundant at sites where shell was scarce, 
"probably because stone was a less convenient 
material to work into ornaments, and was not much 
used if shell was available. The commonest pendant 
shapes are rectangular or subrectangular, round or 
oval and trapezoidal. All three are reported from 
Basket Maker III. " 

In Canyon de Chelly, Morris (1933) reports on 
burials from Tseahatso Cave, which is dated to 
Basketmaker III. Three burials were described. 
Here necklaces and bracelets of shell, stone, and 
turquoise were found, as well as turquoise inlay. In 
Mummy Cave, Morris (1925) found two child burials 
out of over 14 with white bead bracelets interspersed 
with abalone shells. Other cave burials in the area 
had turquoise mosaic pendants. One male also had a 
bracelet of shell beads. Other burials had pendants of 
shell, as well as wood and yucca seed bead 
ornaments. 

In the Prayer Rock District, Morris (1980) 
found additional burials in a number of caves that are 
Basketmaker in age. In Broken Flute Cave, Burial 5, 
an adult male had a bracelet of 12 Olivella shells and 
white discoid beads around the neck; Burial 3 had a 
bracelet of Olivella and white shell beads, as well as 
a necklace of Olivella and white discoid beads. In 
Cave 2, a baby was buried with an Olivella shell 
bracelet and a strand of discoid pink and white stone 



Ornaments 1 153 



beads around the neck. Material from structures 
attributed to this period, however, was not as 
abundant as that with burials. In Pithouse 1 of Ram's 
Horn Cave were three stone pendants and eight stone 
beads, along with a stone drill, fossil shell, and 
lumps of red and yellow pigment. There was no 
inference as to whether this represents workshop 
material. Pithouse 4 in this cave had an incomplete 
pendant and a stone bead. In Pocket Cave, Pithouse 
3 contained only one stone pendant. Other ornaments 
from this area included pendants of selenite, 
turquoise, and fine-grained rock, beads of lignite, 
fine-grained rock, red and white variegated stone, 
turquoise, effigy pieces of lignite and shell, and a 
variety of discs. Identified shell taxa included 
Haliotus, Agaronis testacae. Spondylus , Conus, 
Pyrene , Turitella . Glvcymeris , Oliva, and Qlivella 
(Morris 1980). These data are consistent with those 
reviewed under the earlier Basketmaker II section 
above, in that children are buried with jewelry and 
that adults receive varying amounts. Remains in 
living/storage structures are sparser. 

In western Utah, Steward (1936) reports on 
several sites that may reflect a Basketmaker III- 
Pueblo I occupation. Among these were ten 
turquoise pendants from at least six different 
proveniences at four different locations. A stone 
bead, and a few lignite, slate, and stone pendants 
were the only other ornaments reported. 

A considerable amount of excavation has taken 
place in the Mesa Verde area and a few Basketmaker 
III sites had some ornaments. 

Archeologists working in the Mesa Verde 
area are often impressed by the fact that 
few articles classifiable as ornaments are 
encountered in excavation. To all intents 
and purposes the former inhabitants of this 
region were 'poverty struck' as regards 
possession of items for personal 
adornment. It is not often that ornaments 
are found interred with the dead and, 
considering Pueblo Indian burial customs 
in general, this factor alone is indicative of 
their actual scarcity. A review of items 
reportedly taken from the Cliff dwellings 
in the early days shows that jewelry rarely 
was found (Lancaster and Pinkley 
1954:66). 



Table 10.7 summarizes the excavations dated to 
Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I. The excavations since 
Lancaster and Pinkley 's 1954 statement certainly 
conform to it. 

Review of publications resulting from the 
Dolores Archaeological Project indicates a similar 
pattern. Tests at Hanging Rock Hamlet recovered a 
trapezoidal turquoise pendant dating to the late A.D. 
800s from Pitstructure 2 (Gross 1986:66) and two 
bone gaming pieces from a pre A.D. 600 Archaic 
Basketmaker II site, Cougar Springs Cave (Gross 
1986:95). Nelson (1986:Table 8A.4, 783) reports a 
bead (PL 136) from the floor of Pitstructure 1 at 
Pozo Hamlet, which dates between A.D. 600 to 780. 
At Kin Tl'iish, Dohm and Gould (1986:668-669) 
found a jet ornament fragment (PL 363) that was 
broken during manufacture on the bench surface in 
Pitstructure 1; they also found one other unspecified 
ornament in another unit. Sebastian (1986) lists an 
ornament from Prince Hamlet, Area 3; this site is 
dated A.D. 720 to 840. At LeMoc Shelter, Hogan 
(1986:Table 4D.8) reports that a total of 11 bone 
ornaments were recovered in proveniences that span 
the period A.D. 750 to 950. At Grass Mesa Village, 
two ornaments were recovered from the Dos Casas 
Subphase (A.D. 760 to 850), 10 from the Periman 
Subphase (A.D. 850 to 900) and three from the Great 
Mesa Subphase (A.D. 880 to 925) (Phagan 
1988:Table 14.5). At McPhee Village, Phagan and 
Hruby (1988:Table 15.8) report three shell ornaments 
were recovered from areas dated between A.D. 850 
to 900. 

Reed et al. (1981) report no ornaments from 5 
MT 5834, a Basketmaker III pithouse near Dolores, 
CO. In the La Plata District, Morris (1939) found a 
cache of four Qlivella shells and two white disk beads 
at Site 23, which was dated Basketmaker III. In Site 
18, there was a calcite pendant in Building I, Area 5, 
that is attributed to a Pueblo I occupation, as was an 
Qlivella bead from a pit in Protokiva 1. Laurel 
Wallace (personal communication, 1993) reports that 
some ornaments were recovered from Basketmaker 
IH-Pueblo I sites along the LaPlata highway, but, 
again, these were relatively few in number. 

In the Piedra District of southwestern Colorado, 
in villages that he attributed to Pueblo I, Roberts 
(1930) recovered some ornaments. Among the pieces 
he reported were two bone tube beads, three gaming 



1154 Chaco Artifacts 



1 

I 

I 
§ 



.§ 



■8 



«5 






IB 



I 



S 
b 




1 



Ci 
< 



< 



5 



«S 



>» 



SS88 8 

m « jo r* p* oo ao oo 

HI QQQQ Q 

Odd ^.1 1 

<<< 3 3 3 3 3 



Q 
3 



00 
VO 

d 



d 

< 



I 
i 




■o -o •o 

333 

-O .O -O 

2SS 
nan 







o 



S<3 
•B . 



i. 



8 "S 

a 8 8 8"> § 

g. S S S a q o a 3 3 

lj £ '£ £ X 33 X X X 



e e 
88 



-CI 

o\ — i 

S E^ 

X 



if 



•- s s 



.9 js ja 



o fi 

f 3 

On g 



o 



3 

E 

o 
p 






Ornaments 1155 



pieces, four shell bracelets on a skeleton, and bits of 
copper ore and a few turquoise. 

Only a few ornaments were recovered and 
most of them were made from stone. The 
most favored material, judging from the 
number of fragments and whole speci- 
mens, was a ferruginous shale of black-red 
hue. Pendants of various forms were 
made from it. The bird (plate 53, a) is an 
unusual type, but the disk, b, is a char- 
acteristic form. Pieces from many broken 
pendants of this type were found, but the 
illustrated example is the only whole 
specimen. The pendant, c, is a hard 
greenish stone whose exact character 
cannot be determined without destroying 
the ornament. The so-called southwestern 
form of alabaster furnished the material 
from which it was made. 

The four flat beads were made from gray 
shale. The latter is very abundant in the 
region. For some reason or other beads 
were not plentiful. Even counting the 
broken ones, there were not enough in 
number recovered to make two medium- 
length necklaces. Why there was a lack 
of such objects for personal adornment is 
not known. At most sites beads of one 
kind or another generally are quite 
abundant. 

Turquoise was so rare that it might well 
be considered as non-existent. Only two 
small pieces, presumably from an inlay or 
mosaic, were found. Both were lying on 
the surface of the ground and may well 
have come from a later horizon. No 
traces of this unusually popular stone were 
present in an unquestioned relationship to 
the period represented (Roberts 1930:153- 
154). 

In the Navajo Reservoir District, Eddy (1968) 
found some ornaments at various sites. The most 
abundant were found at LA 4169, where 71 shell 
discoid beads and five Olivella shells were recovered 
with Burial 12. Most of the ornaments were found 
with burials. 

In the Rio Grande Valley, several sites with 



Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I material have been exca- 
vated. Table 10.8 summarizes these data. Again, 
there are few ornaments at most sites except the 
Artificial Leg-Basketmaker site where more recent 
excavations under the direction of Matthew Schmader 
(1994) revealed a burial with about 100 pieces of 
turquoise in chunks, partially worked beads, and 
pendants. Freshwater mussel, Olivella beads, 
Spondylus shell, and abalone were also present. 
Other material recovered at the site includes slate 
hishi, two smoky quartz crystals, an effigy-shaped 
slate pendant, as well as other minerals. 

In summary, the material types used in Chaco 
Canyon reflect participation in a long-distance trade 
network extending as far as the Pacific Ocean. 
Production was probably occurring in several places 
and a few individuals may have been better jewelry- 
makers than others. Only one suggestion of a 
craftsperson's burial was recorded— at the Twin Butte 
site in the Petrified Forest (Wendorf 1953). 

Regarding distribution and consumption, there 
is generally very little ornamental material recovered 
from structures dating to the Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo 
I period in any part of the Anasazi world, so the 
material recovered from the sites in Chaco Canyon 
fits the pattern well. The material from the 
Whitewater District of eastern Arizona, near 
Allantown, may contradict this as the storage room 
(Room 10 of Unit 2) had over 9,000 shell beads, but 
again this may be slightly later in time. The 
Artificial Leg-Basketmaker Site in the Rio Grande 
Valley reported by Frisbie (1967) and Schmader 
(personal communication, 1992) also had an unusual 
amount of turquoise and other objects. It may also 
be slightly later, in part; Schmader (1994) would 
place his excavations up to A.D. 1000 at the very 
latest, but they ranged from A.D. 650 to 900 overall. 

Burial goods reflect differences in the number of 
ornaments recovered. Those burials with the greatest 
number of grave goods have been found in the 
Canyon de Chelly, the Prayer Rock District, with one 
man at the Twin Butte site in the Petrified Forest, 
and at the Artifical Leg-Basketmaker site. These are 
not as rich in grave goods as those discussed under 
the Archaic-Basketmaker II section. It may be that 
the introduction or use of jewelry co-occurred along 
with some type of horticulture and at least seasonal 
settlement and construction of habitation structures. 
Although ornaments were still used in the Basket- 



1156 Chaco Artifacts 



vo 

Ov £> 

— < 00 

* 2 



V© 
ON 



> 



1 



> 



s s 



00 

1 

VO 


■ 

VO 


00 

6 


00 
1 

o 
v-> 


Q 


Q 


Q 


Q 


< 


< 


< 


< 



s I 






i 

o 



= 1 



o 
Z 



a ^ 

60 -O 

9*9 

c o 

BE 



E 
o 

JS 

o 
o 






5.2 



•I E 

i M 

s 2 S 2 

sip 

I 8.8-1 

60— ! > 



■S - 2-g 

*> o w 



•8 * E JS 5 ^ 8 -2 



> > 3 U 

73 « o '" 

> > u 

* X> 05 « 
— I<ST»- — I 



r 







69T3 u u 

*H ^h ^ Cm 



O 3 

i 5 

3 3 g. 



&n 



> > 



3 lo !o 



8 

§ 
| 

5. 



-c 
o. 
u 



I/) 



fin 

li 

II 

a* 



x> x> 
I- 

0) CO 

N § 

si 

2 




3 =3 



«<3 

^ c« 

M M (— 

O O Si 
£- 55 > 03 



1 



a, O 



Ornaments 1157 



maker El-Pueblo I period, the number of finely made 
beads found with burials decreased (Gaumer 1937; 
Guernsey and Kidder 1921; Kidder and Guernsey 
1919; Morris and Burgh 1954). 

In conclusion, the material types from Chaco 
Canyon do not vary substantially from those found in 
the rest of the Anasazi world during Basketmaker III- 
Pueblo I. Very few burials were recovered from this 
period in Chaco Canyon, and none had ornaments. 
The material from structures is sparse as it is in 
most, but not all, other Anasazi sites. 

The Bonito Phase 

Because the accepted Basketmaker-Pueblo 
chronology established by Kidder (1962) was in- 
adequate to describe the chronology in Chaco 
Canyon, and because there has been much confusion 
due to the introduction of terms such as Bonito 
Phase, Hosta Butte Phase, and McElmo Phase, Toll, 
Windes, and McKenna (1980) defined a Bonito Phase 
sequence for use in analysis of the Chaco Project. It 
has been used for the ornament analysis; the only 
deviation is at 29SJ 627, where Marcia Truell was 
able to see a distinction ca. A.D. 1050 rather than 
between the A.D. 920 to 1020 and 1020 to 1120 or 
Early and Classic Bonito Phases (Windes has now 
revised his dates, see Chapter 1). Therefore, this 
section will cover what Hayes (1981) called the Late 
Pueblo II-Early Pueblo III and will be discussed as 
Early, Classic, and Late Bonito Phases, the latter 
covering the A.D. 1120 to 1220 period. Data from 
29SJ 627 for A.D. 1000 to 1050 will be discussed 
with the Early Bonito Phase. 

Early Bonito Phase (A.D. 920 to 1020) 

Table 10.9 presents data from eight sites that 
have material dating from A.D. 900 to 1050. (At 
29SJ 627, Truell [1992] used A.D. 1000 and 1050 as 
time divisions; her data from A.D. 900 to 1000 and 
A.D. 900 to 1050 are lumped together as there were 
no differences in material types found.) These sites 
are as follows: 

1) 29SJ 299. Kiva B (Pithouse B) and Pithouse 
E alluvial fill were dated A.D. 920 to 1020 (Loose 
1979; Windes 1976a). 

2) 29SJ 389 (Pueblo Alto). Room 139, Floor 
2; Room 142, Floor 2; Room 143, Floor 8; Room 



146, Floors 2-5; Kiva 3 probably a pilaster base; 
Plaza 1, Grid 8, Floors 4-9; Trash Mound, Grid 70, 
SC 1, Grid 71 and Grid 136 were all dated to this 
period (Windes 1987). Most ornaments were from 
the early A.D. 1000s (Mathien 1987). 

3) 29SJ 391 (Una Vida). Room 23, Floor 2, 
is dated to the A.D. 900s (Akins and Gillespie 1979). 

4) 29SJ 625 (Three C Site). Very little 
material was recovered at this small site that was 
previously excavated by Vivian (1965) and 
reexamined by Windes in 1976 (field notes). 

5) 29SJ 627. Some fill from Pithouse B and 
Pithouse C; Room 3 below Floor 1, Room 4 below 
Floor 1, Room 5 below Floor 1; Room 6, Floor 3; 
Room 7 below Floor 1; Room 8 below Floor 1 to 
Floor 3; Room 10 below Floor 1; Room 12 below 
Floor 1; Room 16, Floor 4, firepit; Room 22 below 
Floor 1 to Floor 3; Room 23; Room 25; Kiva F, 
Level 5 of fill to floor; Burial 3 in Test Trench 10; 
and parts of the Trash Mound were all dated A.D. 
900 to 1050 (Truell 1992). Proveniences dated A.D. 
1000 to 1040/1050 include Room 1, Room 4, Room 
5, Room 6, Room 7, Room 10, Room 13, Room 15, 
Room 19, Room 11 fill to Floor 1; Room 8 and 
Room 8 to Floor 2; Room 11 and Room 16 to Floor 
3; part of the ramada; Kiva D and Kiva G; the Trash 
Mound, Grids IL-1, JL-1, KL-1, KL-2, and KX 
(Truell 1992). 

6) 29SJ 628. Only some surface material was 
assigned to this period (Truell 1976). 

7) 29SJ 629. Fill and floor of Pithouse 2 and 
Pithouse 3; Rooms 6-8; some material from 
Pitstructure A; Plaza Grid 9, especially Other Pit 1, 
Other Pit 9, Other Pit 14, and Other Pit 6; Plaza 
Grids 15, 16, 20, 21, and 202; anthills in Plaza Grids 
31 and 41; and Trash Mound Grids 76 and 82 
(Windes 1993). 

8) 29SJ 1360. House 1, Rooms 7, 9, and 11, 
and Kiva B; House 2, Rooms 1-2, surface Kiva A; 
and Plaza Areas 1, 2, 3 and 5 (McKenna 1984). 

Because there is so little data from four of these sites, 
most of the discussion that follows relies on sites with 
larger databases for primary observations. The 
others, however, do reaffirm the use of some 
materials at other sites. 



1158 Chaco Artifacts 



s 


o 
o 

<3\ 


oq 




?^ 


Q 


•? 


< 


a 




tq 




O) 




O 




** 




Q> 


■v 




o 


^ 


•c 


iS 





■3 

s 



<? « a a 



1 



'■3 "9 
© 8 



..C 

g e-c 

S o ■& 

Coo 

S3NQ 
00 -h r< 



(A O 

COD 



I 



11 

cap 



I 

S3 



"3 

<S 

•a 



1 



1 


■Wts 
S 


•o!t3 

-a 

tS 5 




a 


•a -o 

CIS 


| 


■5 S 

a 


43 6 

c 


I 


"9 5 

c H 


11 


S3 


SS3 


ss 


<£S3 


ss 


>c 


C4C-) 


— oc 


— 


— , — . 


e»i on 



"8 

<s 

I 



■si 

SS3 



■ SI 

5 a a 



*** — "* 



as 
11 



S3 S3 



•c 



I 

S3 






73 

o 

2 



•o 
o 

~ 2.2 «> 

5SS3(5iE 



ill 



<N 



M 1 

ws i*3 

•-3 co 

T3T3 13 B 
« « C 5 
fi fi u J5 

pa co pl, p 

00 -H -< — 1 



•a 

«s 

1 



-H -IN* 



"8 

S ■o j= 

S3SQ <2SS3 

«n r-)C3 ^3N« 



-il 



"o '-3 
S o 



1 



■8 I 

1 1 



S3 S3 



1 1 



•a a 

bo " 



fc- — . — 



a. 

i 



I 

S3 



S3 



§"3 
II 

S3S 



J "8 31 

1 1 o I 

<2s3 Sss 



IS 

1 



o 



■8 

(S 

1 



1 

<s 

I 

S3 



§1| i 

III -1 

<2sS S3 



•a 
a 

■gS 

«> T3 

tS O 

11 

SS3 

n2 



S3 



ig-a 

§ il 

«S3S 



1 


s 

CO 


a 

"«3 


1 

8 


St 

'53 

i 


a 

i 


CO 

a 
«> 


u 


u 


O 











sc 



I 



"21 

SS3 

2J5 



"8 

I 



o S o 

S3S| 



£ °"o 

■O 60 4> 

o cc 
i'g'3 



1 



•5 

o 
E 

3 



Ornaments 1159 



8 





ri 


c 


< 


© 




^ 




oj 




d 




*>«. 




0) 


•o 




o 


^ 


•c 


£ 


0- 



■c 



1-3 



I 

P 



i i 



1 



■8 

11 

a o 
pS 



11 1 

PS s 



■a c 

•as 

11 

a s 



If 



5 
d 



Is I 9 



IB 6 
II 

SP 



ii 

sp 



1 -si 



iS g 2 o 

5 

85=33 



1 



■8 1 § 
1-1 1 

mSp P 



1 



1 



o 



-C 

it 



■a .<<- 
«> — ■» S3 

s-°^ - 

•S-o n-o 
8 n a 5 

Sap* 



"2 ^ 

■9 0,3 m 

I 111 

P ^SQ 



1 11-3 

i ill 

p ^Sq 



T5 

<2 



"8 
1 



B* "« 





» 


3 


1) 


.M 


-C 


"« 




.2* 


J3 


J3 


"5 


CO 


V) 


CO 



s 1 



! -O T3 T3 >»-0 T3 






■8 

12 



§1 



■S' c -9 
(SQSP 



1 

c 



lO 



ill -s-s s|| 

■is i'S'i-S § fr'Sf I 



"8 

to 



11 9 

O0Q(2 



'ww^n^ 



3 



■8 
1 



-! "SS2- 

« HIST3 e B 

_. -c 3 a « <o k. 

111111.11 

JQ ?J 2 «*> » * » — 






••3 ■% 

'3 o 



1 (SO 



s -a 

... 9 



C « ea « O 



"3 

•ota 



8« £ 



*lill- 



■ 'r "? J j ? o o S O u ^ 

^mmSS^QSwS^P 



a 1 
11 

fflO 



£ 



1160 Chaco Artifacts 



1 


o 
o 


.5 


Q 


I 


< 


<*> 








i5 


"8 
•c 
# 







<s 






VO 






l-> 






l/l 






O 






<s 


© 
o 


© 




<^N 


© 


VO 


Q 




Vi 


< 




0\ 



I 

O «5 

-H V") -H 



o 

e 



8 

OP 



CO 

■a a 

« s 



1 






1 

II 



c 

i 



•gg" 


•^ 


o o 


2 s 


MM 



u *o *a 

b c a 

« D. BQ 

-H -. Tf 



2 



« 
1 

■o-a 
a -a 
o S 
OQD 
<s en 



1 



2P 

•a 



I 

bJ§ 

« « V 





"8 


a 


« 


s 

i 


! 

S3 


<s 


i-H 



I ~ 



£ 5 



fr .s 



> 
— 
ol 



jS "i 



| 



0) 

IB 


« a 


i 


1 


_e s 





S 

-o 


3 8 


'v. 


•a 


Vi Cu 

B 


Vi 

o 


D 


U..5 


u. 



2 *o 









■a 
•c 

1 3 

! 3 



Ornaments 1161 



1 


o 
o 

0\ 




Q 


£ 


< 


<a 




^ 




05 




6 




*•» 




-5 


"8 


■Q 


•B 


ff 


#5* 

ft. 









-H _^ 00 






*r> o 









to 

2d 









o 
on 



1162 Chaco Artifacts 



Procurement . Comparison of Table 10.9 with 
Tables 10.4 and 10.6 indicates the presence of 
several new minerals and shell species in excavated 
sites. Although a piece of unmodified copper was 
recovered at 29SJ 627, its unworked state leads me to 
suspect that it was collected as a curiosity. Similarly, 
mica-muscovite appears but is not shaped into a 
recognizable form. 

The increased number of shell taxa during this 
period is important. Species that appear for the first 
time in a dated context include Trachvcardium sp., 
Episcvnea medialis, Argopectin circularis, Spondylus 
cajcifer, Chama echjnata, Oliva sp., Oliva incrassata. 
and Conus perplexus . Based on Truell's ability to 
segregate some of site 29SJ 627 from A.D. 1000 to 
1050/1050 and the presence of two new shell species 
within those time parameters, plus the presence of 
two other new shell species, Trachydarcium. 
probably T. panamensis and Strombus galea tus. I 
suspect that these new shell species probably fall 
within the later part of the Early Bonito Phase. The 
increased number of shell species at small sites such 
as 29SJ 627 and 29SJ 629, as well as increased 
importation of turquoise at the small and large sites 
during this period, indicates more intensive 
interaction with people outside of the San Juan Basin, 
and especially with those to the west who supplied 
the shells. Because we do not know the source of 
turquoise used by the Chaco Anasazi, and neutron 
activation tests performed by Brookhaven National 
Laboratory (Bishop 1979, Mathien 1981) indicate 
there is a similarity between artifacts from Chaco 
Canyon and Guasave, Mexico, I also suspect much of 
this material may have been flowing into Chaco 
Canyon from a west or southwesterly direction. 
Harbottle and Weigand (1992; Weigand 1994; 
Weigand and Harbottle 1992) outline several trade 
networks from turquoise sources to sites throughout 
the greater Southwest; the few pieces from Chaco 
Canyon that have been analyzed do not limit sources 
of Chaco Canyon turquoise to the Cerrillos Mining 
District (Mathien 1992a; Mathien and dinger 1992). 

Production . When compared to the ornaments 
recovered in earlier time segments, argillite, calcite, 
jet/lignite, shale, turquoise, bone, and ceramic 
ornaments are much more abundant in the excavated 
Chaco Canyon sites dated to Early Classic Phase. 
This, plus the increased number of shell species, 
suggests increased use of ornaments for adornment, 
ceremonial purposes, or status symbols. If these 



needs truly increased, it is expected that craft 
specialization may have begun. 

Although data from the excavated Chaco 
Canyon sites do not clarify the question of part-time 
versus full-time specialization, there is evidence for 
manufacturing of turquoise ornaments at canyon 
locations (Mathien 1984a). Workshop areas have 
been identified in Kiva B and Plaza Area 5 at 29SJ 
1360 (McKenna 1984), and in Pithouse 2 and the 
plaza at 29SJ 629 (Windes 1993). Debris, probably 
from a work area elsewhere in the site, appeared in 
a pit in Plaza 1, Grid 8, at 29SJ 389 (Pueblo 
Alto)(Mathien 1987). Turquoise pieces that included 
bead blanks, broken beads, modified and unmodified 
pieces, and a pendant blank were recovered in the 
early trash at Kin Nahasbas (Mathien and Windes 
1988:266); these suggest jewelry-making at this site, 
as does material recovered from anthills located 
farther downslope, which included shell, calcite, and 
shale. Turquoise artifacts and debris were found in 
the fill of Pitstructures 1 and 2 at 29SJ 626 (Mathien 
1990a); Windes (personal communication, 1986) 
thinks jewelry was made at this site, but Mathien 
(1990a) notes that there are several other possible 
explanations for the scatterings of turquoise 
throughout the fill of these two structures. In Kiva B 
at 29SJ 1360 and in Other Pit 1 of the plaza at 29SJ 
629, active and passive abraders, probably used for 
jewelry manufacturing, were identified by Akins 
(1980, Chapter 5 of this report); one active abrader 
was also found in the pit at 29SJ 389, adding strength 
to the identificaton of these areas as production 
locations or debris from such locations. At 29SJ 
629, Cameron (1993, Chapter 3 of this volume) and 
Lekson (personal communicaton, 1982, and Chapter 
4 of this volume) have identified a number of small 
drills made from chalcedonic silicified wood (material 
type #1040) that may have been used to make 
perforations in some turquoise beads. 

Most of the turquoise beads and some bead 
blanks recovered from this site were drilled from 
both sides and tended to be from 0.06-0.19 cm in 
size. Beads and bead blanks were from 0.09-0.21 cm 
with only one at 0.32 cm in thickness so that a very 
pointed and narrow stone drill tip approximately 0.05 
cm at its tip could have produced the beads. 
Gillespie (1993) suggested that porcupine quill drills 
could have been used, based on their presence at 
29SJ 629 in conjunction with the abraders and 
turquoise debris. At Pueblo Bonito and a few other 



Ornaments 1163 



sites, some extremely tiny finely made turquoise 
beads have been recovered. These stone drills would 
have been too large, and perhaps as Haury (1931) 
suggests, cactus spines were used because the 
perforations are almost needle thin. Morris 
(1928:100) also comments on the probable use of a 
cactus thorn, but found no objective proof this 
material was used for drilling ornaments. Hodge 
(1921:13) discovered a number of small turquoise 
beads during his excavations at Hawikuh; he suggests 
an obsidian flake was probably used as a drill rather 
than a thorn, grass stem, wood splinter, etc. 

Haury (1931) also experimented with production 
of a fine-grained pelitic red rock similar to 
archeological specimens found in the Arizona State 
Museum collections. The drilling alone took over 15 
minutes using an Echinocactus wislizini Engleman 
spine on one side. Given that he is not an 
experienced bead-maker, perhaps an estimate of 15 
minutes per bead for the entire process would not be 
unreasonable. Crotty (1983:33) has drawn on 
Haury's experiment and the techniques discussed by 
Jernigan (1978:199) to estimate production of six 
beads per hour for black and red argillite beads. 
Using the estimate of 3,976 shale beads in the 
necklace found with the female at 29SJ 1360, this 
indicates over 662 hours of work just to produce one 
necklace. Because the red shales are softer than 
many of the turquoise artifacts found, the number of 
hours spent in the production of turquoise ornaments, 
even in locations where very little scrap or unfinished 
ornaments are recovered, must have been large. 

How much a little bit of turquoise scrap 
represents was discussed with Theodore Frisbie 
(personal communication, August 1984), who has 
been doing ethnographic research at Zuni Pueblo for 
over two decades. He observed that jewelry-makers 
have a very high regard for turquoise and attempt to 
gather up even the finest flakes to be saved and used 
in conjunction with prayer meal in ceremonial 
activities. Although it is not possible to draw a 
perfect analogy between twentieth century Zuni and 
tenth century Chaco Canyon Anasazi, Judd (1954) 
noted the use of scraps of turquoise as offerings in 
kiva pilasters at Pueblo Bonito, which suggests there 
may have been a long-standing antecedent for the 
Zuni custom. Hodge (1921) indicates that the late 
prehistoric inhabitants of Hawikuh used turquoise as 
offerings; again, some of the material was not good 
quality. Also, Windes found turquoise in Chaco 



Anasazi shrines as well as in anthills to the east of 
the Chaco East (Kin Bulldozer) Community (Windes, 
personal communication, 1985; 1993). Frisbie also 
thought the turquoise artifacts found in Other Pit 1 of 
the plaza at 29SJ 629 were intentional offerings. 
Interestingly, only turquoise fragments and debris 
were found; if red shale were being utilized in the 
same workshops, small red flakes would be expected 
to appear in the archeological record. None were 
found. Black and white debris would be harder to 
find; thus, manufacturing of jet/lignite/shale and 
calcite ornaments might not be as easily detected. 
Windes looked carefully and found none at 29SJ 392 
(Kin Nahasbas) and 29SJ 626, and Powers searched 
for these traces at Pueblo Alto (Windes 1987). 
Windes believes his extra care would have revealed 
the black and white specks. It is thus inferred that 
only turquoise ornaments were being processed in 
these workshop areas. 

With regard to the types and shapes of orna- 
ments from this period, there are several new forms 
found among the excavated Chaco Canyon artifacts. 
These include buttons, rings, zoomorphic shapes, and 
some unusual shell pendants. Figure 10.2 illustrates 
some of these in schematic form. In general, these 
ornaments tend to be fairly well-made. The rough 
edges noted in both the Archaic-Basketmaker II and 
Basketmaker IH-Pueblo I sections of this report were 
not seen. These ornaments, however, are not as 
smoothly finished as some from later proveniences. 

Both the workshop data and the better made 
artifacts suggest greater labor investment in the 
manufacturing process. Based on the data from site 
29SJ 629, where two floors in the same room and a 
plaza area both had evidence of workshop debris, 
there may have been certain artisans who were skilled 
in this field and who did this type of work over many 
years. It may have been a family occupation. 
Whether or not it was the only occupation they 
engaged in cannot be determined; there may have 
been time alloted to both agriculture and jewelry- 
making. 

Distribution and Consumption . Pieces of 
turquoise, shell, and other jewelry items are scattered 
among the proveniences classified as fill and are 
found on almost all floors of rooms, kivas, or plazas 
of this period at the four sites where the most careful 
data collections were made. In contrast, very few 
were reported at 29SJ 625 (Three C site), a site 



1164 Chaco Artifacts 



& O 






1 




m 











n 









w 



Ornaments 1165 



Figure 10.2. Ornament types from the Early Bonito Phase sites in Chaco Canyon. 

a) Turquoise button from 29SJ 627 (FS 5580). 

b) Jet/lignite button from 29SJ 627 (FS 576). 

c) Jet piece from 29SJ 627 (FS 1610). 

d) Bone piece from 29SJ 627 (FS 153). 

e) Olivella ring from 29SJ 629 (FS 2516). 

f) Jet ring from 29SJ 1360 (FS 302). 

g) Argillite disk from 29SJ 627 (FS 190). 

h) Limonite gaming piece (?) from 29SJ 627 (FS 141). 

i) Argillite zoomorphic from 29SJ 627 (FS 1378). 

j) Argillite zoomorphic from 29SJ 627 (FS 1848). 

k) Argillite zoomorphic from 29SJ 627 (FS 4387). 

1) Azurite zoomorphic from 29SJ 629 (FS 719). 

m) Clay zoomorphic/pendant from 29SJ 629 (FS 2805). 

n) Selenite zoomorphic from 29SJ 629 (FS 2409). 

o) Argillite pendant from 29SJ 627 (FS 1118). 

p) Chama echinata pendant from 29SJ 389, Pueblo Alto (FS 6073). 

q) Argillite pendant from 29SJ 627 (FS 2286). 

r) Haliotus cracherodii pendant from 29SJ 627 (FS 2802). 

s) Glvcvmeris gigantea pendant from 29SJ 627 (FS 5956). 

t) Glvcvmeris gigantea pendant from 29SJ 627 (FS 5077). 

u) Argopectin circularis pendant from 29SJ 627 (FS 666). 

v) Trachvcardium sp. pendant from 29SJ 627 (FS 1829). 

w) Strombus galeatus pendant from 29SJ 627 (FS 1609). 



salvaged using different excavation techniques. 
Although the numbers in any one provenience at any 
site are few, one to several ornaments on the floor 
indicates that distribution is widespread within sites in 
Chaco Canyon. Nancy Akins has examined grave 
goods from Chaco burials (Akins 1986:85-88) and 
notes that very few burials at small sites had any 
grave goods at all. This contrasts with several 
burials found at Pueblo Bonito. This does not 
preclude the use of ornaments by inhabitants of the 
small sites, however. Burial 2, found on the floor of 
Kiva B at 29SJ 1360, was a woman about 35-39. 
She wore a necklace at the time of death. In 
contrast, Burial 1, a slightly older female, had no 
ornaments. None of the three children found with 
these women wore ornaments. These individuals 
were not intentionally buried; their presence is the 
result of asphyxiation (McKenna 1984:353-362). 

The question of ceremonial use of turquoise was 
raised above. As noted, Judd (1954) found turquoise 
debris and often poorer quality turquoise pieces in 
kiva pilasters at Pueblo Bonito. Review of the 
catalog cards of the U.S. National Museum/ 
Smithsonian Institution for Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo 
del Arroyo revealed that ornaments of other material 



types were also included in the pilaster offerings; 
some were complete, some were fragments. Mathien 
(1985: Appendix C) provides lists of materials from 
these sites. Not all the details for these offerings 
were available, but not all kivas had pilaster 
offerings. Whether there is a difference between kiva 
construction groups and/or behavior of the Chaco 
Anasazi or whether this is a result of deterioration of 
buildings and/or archeological field methods has not 
been evaluated. 

Additional offerings in kivas were documented 
for earlier sites. At 29SJ 423, the great kiva had 
turquoise pieces under the posts (Mathien 1985; 
Windes 1975a). Bonito Phase offerings in the bench 
and floors of the great kiva at Chetro Ketl were also 
recovered (Mathien 1985:Appendix C; Woods 1934, 
n.d.). During excavation of a trench at Pueblo Alto, 
a small pocket in Kiva 3 was discovered; it may 
represent a pilaster offering, dating ca. A.D. 1040 to 
1050, and would suggest use of beads, pendants, and 
debris as offerings in the Early Bonito Phase. At 
29SJ 627, the ventilator tunnel of Kiva G, dating ca. 
A.D. 1000 to 1050, also contained what looked like 
the remains from a turquoise workshop, plus shell 
beads and fragments. The site excavator, Marcia 



1166 Chaco Artifacts 



Truell (1992), thought these pieces may represent a 
ceremonial offering. If so, we then have evidence to 
suggest that kiva offerings were placed in a variety of 
places and were found at both small and large sites. 

Based on the above, I suggest that during the 
Early Bonito Phase the Chaco Anasazi had estab- 
lished new procurement, production, distribution, and 
consumption patterns that differed somewhat from 
those seen earlier in Chaco Canyon and the entire 
Anasazi area. Ornaments continued to be used and 
necklaces were worn by some women; however, a 
pattern of ceremonial offerings was established in 
structures similar to those used by modern pueblos 
for ceremonial and community functions that may 
have been introduced in the A.D. 500s. The 
presence of such an offering at small sites in smaller 
kivas, as well as large ones, suggests the tradition in 
this time period was not an exclusive property of the 
inhabitants of larger sites. The presence of turquoise 
workshop material at 29SJ 627, 29SJ 1360, 29SJ 626, 
29SJ 392 (Kin Nahasbas), and 29SJ 389 (Pueblo 
Alto) prior to the major growth period for the system 
reinforces the possiblity of little differentiation among 
inhabitants of the various sites in Chaco Canyon at 
this time. Although these inferences are based on 
limited data, they do provide ideas that need further 
exploration. 

Classic Bonito Phase (A.D. 1020 to 1120) 

Although much material from sites excavated by 
the Chaco Project was probably from this time frame, 
ornaments and minerals from proveniences limited 
strictly to this time span came from only four sites. 

1) 29SJ 389 (Pueblo Alto). Room 103, Floors 
1-4; Room 110, fill and Floor 1; Room 112, Floor 2; 
Room 138, Floor 1; Room 143, Floors 1-6; Room 
236, Floor 4; Plaza 1, Grid 35; Plaza 2, Grid 201; 
Plaza Feature 1, Room 4, Floors 3 and 4; and the 
Trash Mound (Windes 1987). 

2) 29SJ 391 (Una Vida). Room 19, Floor; 
Room 45, roof-fall and floor; Rooms 46-47, backdirt; 
Room 47, fill above Floor 1 (Akins and Gillespie 
1979). 

3) 29SJ 423. Pithouse A, surface and fill; 
Pithouse B, fill, shrine area. Windes (1975a) thinks 
most of the material from the shrine area covered 



Pithouses A and B, as the Classic Bonito shrine 
overlays these earlier structures. 

4) 29SJ 721. An unfinished kiva was dated to 
this period. It had very little in the way of ornaments 
or minerals in it (Windes 1975b). 

Table 10.10 summarizes the data from this period. 
Because only two sites have sufficient data and 
because 29SJ 423 is a shrine rather than an 
occupational site, the information from this period is 
difficult to evaluate; however, certain inferences can 
be made. 

Procurement . One new shell species, 

Choromvtilus palliopunctatus, a clam from the Gulf 
of California, was recovered. The earliest dated 
copper bell was found in the plaza at Pueblo Alto, 
again indicating some type of trade with inhabitants 
of northern Mexico. The copper bell is type IIA/a 
(DiPeso 1974, Vol. 7:510) or type ICla (Pendergast 
1962) and similar to those Judd (1954:Figure 28 c or 
e) recovered at Pueblo Bonito. This is the most 
widespread style found in sites throughout the 
Southwest. A macaw, also an import from the south, 
dating A.D. 920 to 1020, was recovered in the 
overburden of Pithouse B at 29SJ 1360 (McKenna 
1984:321). Whether or not importation of this 
macaw correlates with the importation of copper bells 
from northern Mexico is difficult to determine. 

Production . No workshop scrap or turquoise 
debris were recovered from the Classic Bonito Phase 
material at Pueblo Alto. Some recovered ornaments 
and worked minerals indicate fine workmanship, 
however. An excellent example is an effigy made of 
a hard, dark stone classified as goethite that was 
found in the trash mound (Figure 10. 3 [a]). Other 
shapes, also in Figure 10.3 [b and c] include two 
jet/lignite pieces that are deteriorating, but it is 
possible to see the care put into their manufacture. 
The selenite piece with minimal grinding (Figure 
10. 3 [d]) is much rougher, as are the two selenite 
pendants (Figure 10.3 [e and f]). The quartz crystal 
(Figure 10.3[g]), however, exhibits a very small 
perforation and excellent shape. I question whether 
the selenite, being a more fragile material, may have 
deteriorated through natural causes over the years or 
whether it was made by a less experienced worker 
who started his career working with abundant local 
materials. 



Ornaments 1167 
Table 10.10. Classic Bonito Phase (A.D. 1020 to 1120) ornament and mineral materials. 



Material 



29SJ 389 



29SJ 391 



29SJ 423 



29SJ 721 



Argillite 

Azurite 
Calcite 

Chert, green 

Copper 

Crystal, calcite 
Goethite 
Gyp site 

Hematite 

Lead 
Lignite 

Limonite 

Limonitic sandstone 

Malachite 

Mica-muscovite 
selenite 

Quartz, green with 
sandstone 

Sandstone 
Selenite 



Shale 

Shark's tooth 
Turquoise 



1 Bead 
1 Disk 
1 Mod. 
1 Other 

1 Unmod. 

2 Mod. 
41 Unmod. 

31 Beads 
2 Mod. 
1 Inlay 



1 Bell 



1 Zoomorph. 

1 Mod. 

1,218 Unmod. 

1 Bead 

4 Unknown 

31 Debris 

5 Mod. 
54 Unmod. 



1 Mod. 

5 Unmod. 

2 Zoomorph. 

1 Gam. pc. 
20 Mod. 
49 Unmod. 



2 Unmod. 
2 Unmod. 



1 Unmod. 

1 Bead 
13 Mod. 

2 Pend. 
182 Unmod. 

1 Zoomorph. 
1 - 

34 Beads 
1 Other 
1 Ring 

1 

6 Beads 
5 Debris 
4 Inlay 
10 Mod. 
4 Pend. 

3 Pend. bl. 
3 Unmod. 



1 Disk 



5 Beads 
3 Mod. 
1 Unmod. 
1 Pend. bl. 



3 Unmod. 



1 Bead 
1 Unmod. 



1 Mod. 

2 Unmod. 



2 Unmod. 



5 Unmod. 

1 Other 

2 Mod. 



14 Unmod. 
1 Other 



1 Unmod. 
1 Unmod. 



4 Beads 
1 Mod. 
1 Unmod. 



4 Unmod. 



1 Bead 



226 Beads 
2 Pend. bl. 

69 Mod. 

49 Unmod. 

19 Debris 
1 Frag. 



1 Mod. 



1168 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.10. (continued) 



Material 


29SJ 389 


29SJ 391 


29SJ 423 


29SJ 721 


Bone 


1 Bead 
4 Bead bl. 
4 Gam. pc. 


- 


1 Bead 


- 


Ceramic 


1 Ball 


- 


- 


- 


Glycymeris gigantea 


8 Brae, frags. 


6 Brae, frags. 


1 Bracelet 


- 


Choromvtilus 
palliopunctatus 


1 Unmod. 


- 


- 


- 


Chama echinata 


1 Pend. 


- 


- 


- 


Haliotus cracherodii 


- 


- 


1 Pend. bl. 

2 Inlay 
2 Unid. 


■ 


Olivella dama 


12 Beads 
1 Unid. 


- 


3 Beads 


- 


Fossil shell impression 


2 


- 


- 


- 


No. of materials 


23 


3 


18 


1 


Total items 


1,789 


17 


422 


1 


Ornaments 


126 

(7.0%) 


12 
(70.6%) 


244 
(57.8%) 


- 


Soft minerals 

(pigments) 


1,623 
(90.7%) 


- 


23 
(5.5%) 


- 



Distribution and Consumption . The one 
outstanding example of use of ornaments for 
ceremonial purposes is the data from 29SJ 423. The 
Pueblo HI material is from the shrine, a stone 
receptacle containing over 150 pieces of turquoise; 
additionally, numerous other turquoise and shell 
pieces were scattered about (Hayes and Windes 
1975). Beads, pendant blanks, inlay, modified, and 
unmodified turquoise were recovered. Although most 
of the beads were well-made, they tended to be larger 
(ca. 0.30-0.57 cm in diameter). None of the smaller 
beads were recovered at this site. These beads were 
also greener than the inlay discovered in Room 142 
of Pueblo Alto or the turquoise necklaces found in 
Pueblo Bonito by Pepper (1909) and Judd (1954). 
This may reflect the choice of less desirable pieces as 
offerings. 

At Pueblo Alto, room floors had from none to 
five pieces of turquoise, as they did during the Early 
Bonito Phase. The trash (either from the trash 
mound or the lower fill in Kiva 10 which may be 
slightly later) dating to the Classic Bonito Phase did 
not contain much turquoise at all, and certainly no 
indication of disposal of workshop material. 



Late Bonito Phase (A.D. 1120 to 1220) 

Three sites had material that was recovered 
from proveniences dating to this phase (Table 10.11). 

1) 29SJ 389 (Pueblo Alto). Kivas 8, 9, 16, 
upper levels of Kiva 10, and floor of 15; the circular 
structures (1 and 2) in the plaza; Plaza 1, Grid 114; 
and Other Structure 4 had just a few ornaments, not 
enough for comparative purposes (Mathien 1987; 
Windes 1987). 

2) 29SJ 391 (Una Vida). Room 23, fill; Room 
64; Room 83, floor, are also poor candidates for 
comparative purposes (Akins and Gillespie 1979). 

3) 29SJ 633. Room 7 fill below Floors 1 and 
2; and Room 8, fill below Floor 1 (Mathien 1991). 

After reviewing the discrete areas of these three sites, 
only the material from 29SJ 389 and 29SJ 633 
provide data for any type of speculation about 
changes in ornament use. The data from 29SJ 391 
(Una Vida), Room 23, were from an area re- 
excavated during the Chaco Project; ornament 



Ornaments 1169 




TD 




5 




a 







O 




g 



1170 Chaco Artifacts 



Figure 10.3. Ornament types from the Classic Bonito Phase sites in Chaco Canyon. 

a) Geothite zoomorphic pendant from 29SJ 389, Pueblo Alto (FS 4781). 

b) Jet/lignite zoomorphic from 29SJ 389, Pueblo Alto (FS 4644). 

c) Jet/lignite zoomorphic from 29SJ 389, Pueblo Alto (FS,4822). 

d) Selenite zoomorphic from 29SJ 389, Pueblo Alto (FS 1173). 

e) Selenite pendant from 29SJ 389, Pueblo Alto (FS 5467). 

f) Selenite pendant from 29SJ 389, Pueblo Alto (FS 4545). 

g) Quartz crystal pendant from 29SJ 389, Pueblo Alto (FS 4347). 



materials were either in the fill (100 turquoise bits) 
from above Floor 1, which was removed by Vivian 
during stabilization, or from a small depression found 
by Akins and Gillespie (1979). Although there is a 
suggestion of a possible workshop here, the validity 
of the inference is difficult to substantiate. 

Procurement . The sample is small, especially 
at 29SJ 633. The variety of materials from these 
three sites suggests there may have been fewer 
materials used during this period; the sample also 
may be skewed. At 29SJ 633, turquoise and shell 
were still imported, but the amounts are lower than 
those found in the Classic Bonito Phase. 

Production . Although there are beads, 
pendants, an effigy, inlay, and bracelet fragments 
among the ornaments recovered, there are no 
workshop areas except for the possible material from 
Room 23 at Una Vida (Mathien 1984a, 1985). That 
identification was tentative and may be erroneous, as 
it is based on assumptions rather than concrete 
evidence. 

Distribution and Consumption . None of the 
living floors contain a wealth of material, except the 
upper one in Room 23/64 of Una Vida. The few 
scattered pieces at 29SJ 633 resemble those from the 
floors of other house sites where no offerings or 
workshop debris were found. 

Comparisons 

Data from other excavated sites in Chaco 
Canyon that can be placed within a narrow time 
frame are limited (Tables 10.12, 10.13, and 10.14). 
Although there are numerous ornaments made from 
a variety of materials at sites, it is difficult to make 
statements about the artifacts recovered. Catalogs 
often have different names for the same material, or 
students were vague in their descriptions of what was 
found. These problems affect the comparisons to 



some extent, but they do not prohibit a statement 
about ornaments within a broader framework of the 
entire Bonito Phase (A.D. 920 to 1220, see below). 

Procurement . After about A.D. 1000, a greater 
variety of shell species and larger quantities of 
turquoise indicate increased trade with other groups 
outside the San Juan Basin. The volume of turquoise 
and shells found at sites in Chaco Canyon increased 
over that found in the previous time segments. Data 
from sites excavated prior to the Chaco Project do 
not conflict with any of the interpretations made 
above. Shell taxa such as Chama echinata, 
Nassarius , Episcynea medialus are found during the 
late eleventh century-early twelfth century at the 
previously excavated sites. I thus conclude that by 
the Early Bonito Phase, we see an increase in trade 
for these items that are procured from distances that 
reach the Pacific Coast and the Gulf of California. 
These source areas were used by Pueblo I and 
continue to be used throughout the entire Bonito 
Phase. 

Production . Possible workshop materials were 
recognized at Pueblo del Arroyo, Kin Kletso, Be 51, 
and Be 59 (Mathien 1984a). Although some of these 
areas have tentative dates, it is assumed that 
craftsmen were working in both large and small sites 
throughout the entire Bonito Phase. 

Distribution and Consumption . Small sites also 
contained a great variety of shell species and 
turquoise pieces (Mathien 1984a: 175). The presence 
of numerous ornaments, scraps of turquoise and 
shell, in particular, and of other materials in the 
pilasters of kivas at Pueblo Bonito, Pueblo del 
Arroyo, Pueblo Alto, and in the ventilator of Kiva G 
at 29 SJ 627, indicate that these were not only items 
that served as jewelry, but that they also had some 
ceremonial significance. In addition to the offering 
found in the Basketmaker III great kiva and the 
shrine at 29SJ 423, Windes (1975a) also recovered 



Ornaments 1171 



Table 10. 1 1 . Late Bonito Phase (A.D. 1120 to 1220) ornament and mineral materials. 



Material 



29SJ 389 



29SJ 391 



29SJ 633 



Aragonite 
Argillite 

Azurite 

Calcite 

Coal 

Gypsite 



3 Unmod. 



1 Inla 
4M 



Jay 
od. 



1 Mod. 

1 Unmod. 

9 Mod. 

2 Pend. Bl. 

1 Unmod. 

3 Mod. 



1 Inlay 

2 Frags. 

2 Unmod. 



2 Unmod. 
2 Unmod. 



10 Unmod. 



Gypsum 
Hematite 

Jet 
Lignite 

Limonite 

Malachite 

Mica-muscovite 
Selenite 

Shale 

Turquoise 



Bone 

Glycymeris gigantea 

Chama echinata 
Haliotus cracherodii 
Olivella dama 
Unidentified shejj 
No. of materials 
Total items 
Ornaments 



Soft minerals 
(pigments) 



6 Mod. 
1 Unmod. 



2 Mod. 

3 Unmod. 

3 Mod. 
1 Unmod. 

134 Debris 
1 Mod. 
1 Unmod. 

1 Unmod. 

17 Mod. 
13 Unmod. 

1 Pend. 

1 Pend. Bl. 

1 Unmod. 
1 Mod. 
1 Pend. 
1 Other 

1 Inlay 
1 Pend. 
1 Unmod. 



5 Beads 
1 Pend. 

1 Orn. 

2 Brae, frags. 
2 Beads 

1 Pend. 



1 Bead 



1 Effigy 



1 Pend. 
1 Unknown 



100 Bits 

1 Bead 

2 Inlay 

9 Debris 

3 Mod. 

3 Unmod. 
1 Pend. 



2 Brae, frags. 



2 Inlay 



1 Pend. 

9 

132 

11 
(8.3%) 

3 

(2.3%) 



2 Unmod. 

13 Unmod. 
1 Mod. 



9 Unmod. 
1 Mod. 



14 Unmod. 



1 Bead 
1 Debris 
1 Pend. 
1 Unid. 



2 Mod. 
2 Beads 



18 

230 

21 
(9.1%) 

182 

(79.1%) 



10 

62 

4 
(6.5%) 

52 

(83.9%) 



1172 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.12. 



Early Bonito Phase (A.D. 920 to 1020) ornament and 
mineral materials. 



Material Type 



29SJ 394 
Be 50 



29SJ 589 
Be 236 



Bone 

Shell: 
Olivella da ma 
Glycymeris 

Stone 

Stone, gray 

Turquoise 



10 Beads 
1 Bead 

1 Shell 

2 Brae, frags. 
2 Balls 

1 Pendant 

1 Bead 
8 Pendants 



1 Pend. frag. 
- Fragments 



No. of materials 
Total items 
Ornaments 

Soft minerals 



5 

26 

25 
(96.2%) 



1 
1 + 

1 

(100%) 



Table 10.13. Classic Bonito Phase (A.D. 1020 to 1120) ornament and mineral materials. 



Material 



29SJ 399 
Be 59 



Ferdon's 
Jacal Site 



29SJ 1947 
Pueblo del Arroyo 



Bone 

Argillite 

Gilsonite/jet 

Hematite 
Shell: 

Abalone 
Chama echinata 
Olivella 
Turquoise 



7 Gam. pes 
3 Beads 

1 Disk 
1 Effigy 

1 Pendant 
1 Ring 
1 Mod. 

1 Object 



1 Bead 



13 White beads 



1 Cylinder bead 

1 Fragment 

2 Bead frags. 

12 Frags. 
1 Bead frag. 
94 Beads/frags. 

29 Frags. 

4 Pend. /frags. 

8 Beads 

1 Tesserae 
47 Chips 



No. of materials 


5 


Total items 


17 


Ornaments 


15 
(88.2%) 


Soft minerals 


. 



1 

13 

13 
(100%) 



5 
200 

89 

(44.5%) 



Ornaments 1173 



<*» 3 
0\ o 

53 a 



J'" 

3<£ 



3 

a «2 



CO . 



8 

8 J 



t- 

<stt 



S3 



«§u«a 



3.U 

Ms 



U iM 



I 



& 



__ _ _ — v-, — tn en 2»i"<"< ■* 



1 



us 



I 



<2Ss 






— ' "H^WI 



2 



I I I I 



I I 



I I I 



I 



I 






|i| 



i 1 
<3« 5 



a J 



Jl 



|3 

ss 



a "8 

£ II 



1 I 

i I 



I 



^ 



I 



2 M 

« 1 



3 1 

f J s 



i § 



I 1 I 

S a a a 



=3 



i <s 



1174 Chaco Artifacts 



On o 



2o 
55| 



^i-to 

SI 



S3 



Sac 



o> 

3<2 



«0 

Si 



■8- 
II 

a 



i 

! 



! 



1 1 

1 - I 

1 ^ i 

(0 CO (0 



1 1 



"2 g °2 p " °S -o 

an 3<2u< <g n « 

t^N© —10,00 ft « I J 
On 



■ ill 






I 



sl 



fO i i i i 



£ 



i i i iii 



| 1 



f 



i i 



i i 



i i i 



i i i 



~N I I <S^ 



I ^11 



iSffi 



iii i i 



i i i i 



• i i i i 



I 



"2 !«i 

" SCfi & 

i i 8 «*>-< ■ * 



| 



U.0.1/) 



e 
. ! 

lit I 



1 



i 



<S! ^^H^ 



I I I I I I 



I 



e 



1 






Ornaments 1 175 



©\ v 
CO e 



2 .2?J 

55-8 ^ 

a<2 



•*'co 

oe 



oe 



GO 



3 

<a.2 



If 



s v 



X <X m 60 "O "O » .9 S 






Uh: 



n O 

■SiS 



55^ 




<♦> — < <S — < rr 






1 



55 ; 



.8 






60 "2 



"8 a 

1111 

Br*** 



O 

3 



I 



OO —I, 






6* 



o <*> 



IK 

_ •* 






as 
8 



r< v> \r>' 



4R 
"J 

VC VO Tf Jj 



o 



"J 






2 r»g 



"-" oo P* 



£ .3 



2 

3 



s 

u 

c 

•§ 

«s 
o 

(0 



1 176 Chaco Artifacts 



similar offerings of turquoise at several other shrines 
located throughout the San Juan Basin. These include 
Hosta Butte in the south and Huerfano in the north. 

The analysis of burial goods by Akins (1986) 
and Akins and Schelberg (1984) suggests that 
turquoise items occur more frequently with burials in 
large sites and especially from Pueblo Bonito. Akins 
and Schelberg infer status differentiation by the 
Classic Bonito Phase. Haury's (1931) and Crotty's 
(1983) crude estimates of time needed to produce 
beads would support the idea of some form of craft 
specialization that may have been nearly full-time to 
produce the thousands of items such as those found 
by Pepper (1909) in Room 33 of Pueblo Bonito and 
by the Chaco Project in various sites. 

Leadership of some type and specialization is 
supported by other studies. Data on prehistoric roads 
led several investigators (Marshall et al. 1979; 
Powers et al. 1983; Windes 1982, 1987) to conclude 
that Pueblo Bonito, Pueblo Alto, and Chetro Ketl 
were the central node in the network that tied the 
inhabitants of Chaco Canyon to outliers located 
throughout the San Juan Basin. Lekson's (1984) 
studies of architecture and Schelberg's (1982) 
analysis of site size corroborate these conclusions. 
The planning of these architectural features and the 
correlation of the work force indicate some 
leadership, but the level of political sophistication 
was probably limited (Sebastian 1988). 

Other sites throughout the San Juan Basin have 
been given a cursory examination to obtain some idea 
about the use of ornaments at Chacoan outliers that 
should be tied into the system. At these sites I would 
expect evidence of use of ornaments if high-ranking 
Chacoan leaders became part of local groups and 
directed the participation in that system. 

This review will encompass data from only 
those Chacoan outliers or communities that have been 
excavated. Starting in the northwest, it will proceed 
in a clockwise fashion around the central node, 
Chaco Canyon. 

Lowry Ruin . The Chacoan structure at Lowry 
Ruin, located west of Cahone, CO, was two stories 
and had about 34 rooms, three kivas, and a great 
kiva. It was probably occupied between A.D. 
1089/90 and 1150. It was remodeled around A.D. 
1120; overall ceramics are Mesa Verde Black-on- 



white, which indicates use around A.D. 1200. 
Martin (1936) reports only a few ornaments; these 
include one felsite bird image, two limestone 
pendants, one limestone ball, one trachyte pendant, 
one trachyte ring, two sandstone buttons, one Mancos 
Black-on-white sherd pendant, and one McElmo 
Black-on-white sherd pendant. No turquoise or shells 
were recorded. 

Escalante . The Escalante Ruin, located on the 
south bank of the Dolores River, west of Dolores, 
CO, has about 25 rooms. Three occupational periods 
were noted by Nemetz (1977): a Chacoan unit 
pueblo dating ca. A.D. 1120 to 1130, a Mesa Verde 
style kiva and reuse of the site ca. A.D. 1150, and a 
Mesa Verde occupation ca. A.D. 1200. There was 
very little evidence of the Chacoan occupation other 
than architecture in the seven rooms and one kiva that 
were excavated. Hallasi (1979:298-300, 309) 
indicates that the following ornaments were found: 
From the earliest occupation, there were a lignite and 
turquoise pendant, a lignite circular disk, and four 
bone tube beads. Other artifacts included one 
Glycymeris shell bracelet fragment, one Olivella 
bead, a hematite paintstone, a piece of limomte, and 
a sandstone effigy block. 

The Dominguez Ruin, a small-house site with 
four rooms and a small kiva with "McElmo-Mesa 
Verde" occupation dating ca. A.D. 1080 to 1200 is 
located nearby. Reed (1979:53-66) notes there were 
thousands of beads and several pendants — all well- 
made and mostly with Burials 1 and 2 — found beneath 
the floor of Room 2. Only two bone beads (one in 
the fill of Room 3 and one in the fill of the kiva), a 
piece of a jet pendant (in the ash of the firepit in 
Room 1), and a keystone-shaped shale pendant were 
from the rest of the site. A rectangular red shale 
pendant was recovered in the fill of the kiva. 

Burial 1 was a small infant accompanied by one 
Oliva undatella shell bead and a bilobed or "Figure- 
s'* bead. Burial 2, an adult female, was accompanied 
by about 6,900 disk-shaped beads, most of which 
were turquoise (6:1 ratio with jet and gray shale 
being the others). A large frog-shaped pendant of 
shell and turquoise, which includes Haliotus shell, 
abalone, and Laevicardium was also recovered, as 
were two circular pendants of Haliotus inlaid with 
turquoise and specular hematite. Additionally, three 
mosaic ornaments of shell and turquoise were found 
in a McElmo bowl. Burials 1 and 2 were interpreted 



Ornaments 1177 



as high status burials, and both were probably post 
A.D. 1123. The kiva with four pilasters had no 
offerings. 

Wallace Ruin . Part of the Lakeview Group of 
small ruins in the area northeast of Cortez, CO, the 
Wallace Ruin is in a valley 500 m south of the Ida 
Jean Ruin. Excavated by Bruce Bradley (1974, 
1984, 1988; personal communicaton, 1981), the 
Wallace Ruin had four construction phases. The 
earliest construction phase (21 rooms) was dated ca. 
A.D. 1000; the second (a two-story room) ca. A.D. 
1075 to 1100; the third (10 two-story rooms) ca. 
A.D. 1075 to 1120; and the last a Mesa Verde Phase 
in the mid to late A.D. 1200s. In total, there are an 
estimated 73 rooms and five kivas. 

Ornaments from the Wallace Ruin were 
relatively abundant but most were recovered from 
proveniences that date to the latest occupation 
(Bradley 1988:27-29). Three turquoise pendants 
were from the first building phase, which is not 
directly tied to the Chaco Phenomenon. Two 
pendants were associated with burn spots in pre-floor 
levels and had been buried with sand prior to 
construction of the floor; Bradley considered these to 
have been buried as part of a room dedication ritual. 

Ida Jean . Located about eight miles south of 
Escalante Ruin, the Ida Jean site was examined by 
Joel Brisbin (1973, personal communication to Robert 
Powers, 1979-80). Excavation of 13 rooms and 2-3 
kivas produced a number of ornaments and minerals, 
mostly from the fill of rooms dating between A.D. 
1050 and 1200. The earliest complete dendro-chron- 
ological sample dated A.D. 1124; this site was prob- 
ably remodeled in the early A.D. 1100s by those em- 
ulating Chacoan architecture. There are other sites in 
the area estimated to date to Pueblo II-Pueblo III. 

Ornaments recovered included nine bone tube 
beads, one partial gaming piece, two whole pendants, 
one partial turquoise pendant, half of a mother-of- 
pearl pendant, one black jet cylinder, one hematite 
gaming piece, one bilobed bead of shell, one gypsum 
pendant, and one other bead. These came from fill 
of five rooms, three work areas, and kiva pilasters; 
they may belong to the later occupation of this site. 

Salmon Ruin . Located just above the San Juan 
River near Bloomfield, NM, Salmon Ruin has 
approximately 140 ground-floor rooms and 100 



second-story rooms that were built in the Chacoan 
style, plus 175-200 rooms or spaces built or 
remodeled during the thirteenth century (Irwin- 
Williams and Shelley 1980). Four phases of Chacoan 
construction date between A.D. 1088 and 1 160. The 
period A.D. 1130 and 1160, however, differs 
architecturally from the earlier Chacoan structure. 

Over 2,633 ornaments and ornament related 
objects were recovered from Salmon Ruin (McNeil 
1986:72). Of these, 633 were ornaments; 88 were 
assigned to the primary or Chacoan occupation, 383 
to the secondary or San Juan/Mesa Verde occupation, 
and 192 were recovered from the plaza. McNeil 
divided his material types into exotics and locals. 
Exotics included jet, greenstone, quartz crystals, 
petrified wood, malachite, azurite, turquoise, ser- 
pentine, muscovite, calcite spar, fluorite, lepidolite, 
and shell. Locally available materials included basalt 
scoria, andesite, granodiorite, limestone, red shale, 
other shale, mudstone, siltstone, claystone, a range of 
sandstone, calcite, slate, schist, fine granular 
quartzite, fine metamorophic rock, chalcedony, agate, 
massive quartz, earthy and other hematites, aragonite, 
gypsum including selenite, kaoline, talc, calcite 
crystals, other mineral, ceramic, bone, and vegetal. 
Table 10.15 is constructed from McNeil's data as 
presented in several tables; information listed under 
category and material does not correlate well with the 
numbers cited above. Unfortunately, McNeil did not 
provide a master list of ornaments by provenience, 
number, material, and type, so I could not rectify 
these discrepancies. 

Table 10.16 was devised using data from 
several of McNeil's tables. It provides a partial list 
of ornaments and ornament-related materials from the 
Chacoan occupation at Salmon Ruin. A total of 311 
pieces are provided, but only 81 of these could be 
ornaments. McNeil (1986:173) indicated that 
turquoise, gypsum, and shell were predominant. 
Gypsum/selenite was the most abundant material, but 
because 193 pieces greatly exceed the number of 
ornaments (81 total), it is assumed that most of these 
were not ornaments. Shell was more popular than 
turquoise (14 versus eight pieces listed in Table 
10.16). 

Although it is difficult to assign specific 
ornaments to a Chacoan or Mesa Verdean 
occupation, McNeil's (1986) data do indicate that 
most of the beads recovered were made of bone and 



1178 Chaco Artifacts 






3 

I 
§ 






f! 


A 


u « 

t? o 
en o 


2 shell 

turquoise 

bone 

calcite 

baked shall 

ceramic 

selenite) 


II 




Co 


t*> 


as u 


00 


COCO 




c 




,o 












a 


t) 


a 


CO <> 


3 
o 


•8 .3 


a 

o 


shell 
turqu 
bone 
2 calc 




8 § 


VJ2— c— — • 


eg £ 




6£ 





« 2.8 
o£l8 



8 



•a 
« i-s «2 i 8 



o 



I 

-Si 



o 

3 



I 



I 



1*1 fg 111 a 

-fii 5.23 3 8*8 8 3*3 



■as 

1 ill I 

S.i^-saa 



i 



Tillir 



jlMli'iii 



rt 3 coJS 3~ 5 SJe O 
.5i,nX' o trSSS o^!x> 



15a« £»>«> 



«> a 

11 

In « -j 

XQ.A 



«3'Si 



O tnJD 



■s 



-O- <— '-"J"* p|«oo-Hrf(SOtSO>n — "OU1- 

— . —I <S — i- h —I 



1 

1 

i 



- 8 



=£2goXl§3 

o 

Sf •000OvO»O<N — -h 



s 



I 

lis II 



S «» 6 



1 I I 



c o Sis o '->t: 



«J o 3 «0 



all 



t~C^<S-H~- 



— | 



& £ 






Ornaments 1179 



•S-2 

U « 

>^ 

SO 
o 

4>0 



SI 

eg & 



3 c 

as 



.8 






I 



a 



— «r> 



* 



S 
L.-2 



I 3 

lSl^.|l|| 

ills m u 

• O-C ( 



■ 

2"JS «•§ I 

3.2 U S<^ o i 






U 

! ftfl" 




•MlMlu 



8 

'5 

3 

i 

3 



1- 

In 

CJT» 



1 



00 



111 

a 5-5 



a 

•Si 
•S'is 






■a 

fs 



-a 

il 

lis 



1 J 

— is— 



si 
H 

or 



*•§« 

111 



«r»oo* 




jlll 

"OcNtN— 



I 



liililfi 



2v<SiN<S-h— 




§2 in 1 



a 



»r- 1 1 



I 



w 



1180 Chaco Artifacts 



s 

o 

i 



! 
I 

I 

1 

8 

a. 

I 

1 
I 



1 

3 



.8 






3 
8 

2 



1 



09 

1 



NO 

oo • 

» S 

w s 

l! 

.S.S 



1' 



-S g 1 

•° 5 •• S 

n2w 







s| e 

2 



i •<»■ r- <s <s © 

s s e & s 

JJJJJ 

E E E E S 
■S <S <£ <£ <£ "g 



N<S 

E 
I 

— — —.—. rr, >< — 



Ornaments 1181 



Table 10.16. Ornaments and ornament-related materials 
from the Chacoan occupation at Salmon 
Ruin." 



Provenience 



No. 



Material 



Room 4 

Room 7 
Room 30 

Room 31 

Room 33 



Room 56 

Room 62 
Room 63 

Room 80 

Room 81 

Room 82 

Room 83 
Room 90 
Room 91 

Room 92 

Room 93 



Room 96 
Room 97 



Room 100 



Room 101 



1 

20 
1 



1 
1 

1 

2 

1 
9 
23 
1 
1 
1 
5 

1 
1 

27 

1 
1 

4 
6 

2 
1 

1 
1 

69 

9 



Turquoise 
Gypsum/ selenite 
Hematite, earthy 

Gypsum/selenite 

Gypsum, earthy 
Shell 

Quartz crystal 
Shells 

Azurite 

Gypsum, earthy 
Gypsum/selenite 
Hematite, earthy 
Hematite, other 
Shale, baked 
Shells 

Calcite 
Gypsum/selenite 

Gypsum/selenite 

Greenstone 
Shell 

Gypsum, earthy 
Gypsum/selenite 

Gypsum/selenite 
Shell 

Turquoise 
Gypsum/selenite 

Gypsum/selenite 

Gypsum/selenite 

Turquoise 
Gypsum, earthy 
Gypsum/selenite 
Hematite, other 
Shell 

Turquoise 
Fluorite 

Hematite, earthy 
Hematite, other 
Shell 

Turquoise 
Azurite 

Gypsum, earthy 
Gypsum/selenite 
Kaolin 

Shale, baked 

Turquoise 
Calcite 

Gypsum, earthy 
Gypsum/selenite 

Calcite 

Gypsum/selenite 
Hematite, other 

Calcite 
Shell 



1182 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.16. (continued) 



Provenience 


No. 


Material 


Room 102C 


1 
2 
1 


Turquoise 

Gyp sum/selenite 

Hematite, earthy 


Room 119 


21 


Gypsum, earthy 


Room 121 


1 


Hematite, earthy 


Room 129 


3 
15 

1 


Gypsum, earthy 
Gyp sum/selenite 
Shell 


Room 130 (Great Kiva) 


_! 


Calcite 


TOTAL 


311 





' Taken from McNeil (1986:Tables 46-51). 



shell, followed by aragonite, baked shale, turquoise, 
sandstone, etc. Additionally, 100 aragonite/calcite 
beads made up the single necklace recovered during 
the Mesa Verde occupation. Most of the inlay were 
turquoise, with some red shale and hematite, but the 
majority of these were found in Mesa Verdean 
contexts (see below). 

With regard to workshop material, McNeil 
(1986:39) found very little evidence of ornament 
manufacturing. There were no specialized tools, few 
ornament blanks, no manufacturing debris, and no 
raw material caches. This did not preclude the 
manufacture of a few pieces; some evidence indicates 
that a little gypsum, shale, and bone were being 
worked by the inhabitants of Salmon Ruin (McNeil 
1986:62-64). A quartz crystal from Room 31 also 
showed some use as an engraving tool (McNeil 
1986:114-115). McNeil thought perhaps a few 
people occasionally made an ornament. 

The data on ornaments are in sharp contrast to 
conclusions reached by Irwin-Williams (1983; and 
Irwin-Williams and Shelley 1980) regarding 
workshop areas and specialization for other items 
used at Salmon. Shelley's (1980) lithic analyses 
indicates that there was more specialization in 
production at this site during the Chacoan, rather than 
the Mesa Verdean occupations. This was seen in an 
examination of projectile points, metates, and milling 
areas (Shelley 1980:155-159). Data on ceramics 
presented by Franklin (1980) supported the 
hypothesis that there was a difference between the 
local inhabitants and those affiliated with Chacoan 
type ceramics during the Chacoan occupation. He 



indicated that Chacoan groups had access to a variety 
of nonlocally available exotic and luxury items. This 
uneven access to or use of exotic or rare ceramic 
vessels, as with other "luxury" goods, was possibly 
concomitant with concentrated socio-religious activity 
in the hands of a theocratic minority. Such activities 
were restricted to certain loci. There was some 
evidence of local manufacture of ceramic products; 
this was supported by the study of refired clays and 
the presence of tools that may have been used for 
ceramic manufacture, such as polishing stones and 
hematite pigment found associated with each other in 
strata that are dominated by San Juan wares (Franklin 
1980:448-464). 

Survey in the San Juan and La Plata Valleys 
(Whalley and Yingst 1978) indicates that some 
Chacoan sites were present in the San Juan Valley 
prior to A.D. 1050, but there was little evidence of 
Chacoan goods at the local sites until after A.D. 
1050. When several large Chaco sites appear in the 
middle San Juan Valley, the Chacoan artifacts appear 
at the smaller sites too. In contrast, Whalley and 
Yingst's data from the lower La Plata indicated that 
several Chacoan outliers had exotic goods but the 
local sites did not. Recent data from the La Plata 
Highway Project, carried out by the Museum of New 
Mexico Office of Archaeological Studies, does not 
contradict these data. Laurel Wallace (personal 
communication, 1993) indicates that very few 
ornaments were found in earlier sites excavated by 
the project staff. 

The Sterling Site . This site is located about five 
miles upstream from the Salmon Ruin. Erosion had 



Ornaments 1183 



destroyed part of this site at which six rooms and two 
kivas were excavated (Bice 1983). Evidence suggests 
that it was occupied by Chacoans probably as early as 
A.D. 950, surely by A.D. 1040, and abandoned 
about A.D. 1100. Later reoccupation by San Juan 
people was evident. 

Bice's initial report only covered the 
architecture of the site; no ornaments were reported. 
Bice (personal communicaton, 1985) indicates few 
ornaments were found and that there was nothing 
remarkable about them. No final analysis of these 
has been done to date. 

Aztec Ruins . Just north of Aztec, NM, is one 
of the larger Chacoan sites, a D-shaped pueblo with 
an estimated 405 rooms and 28 kivas. Aztec West 
Ruin was excavated by Morris during the period 1919 
to 1928 and has two major occupations: one 
Chacoan ca. A.D. 1110 to 1120, and one San 
Juan/Mesa Verdean in the mid A.D. 1200s (Morris 
1928). 

Ornaments recovered with Chaco-related burials 
were scarce. Morris (1928:opposite page 225) listed 
the burials and their accompanying grave goods and 
cultural affiliation. Although his table lists six 
positive and two probable Chacoan burials, only 
seven were assigned to the Chacoan period in the 
text. 

Burial 5 was an infant found in the refuse of 
Room 2 with a black-on-white pot. Burial 59 was an 
adult found in the refuse of the southeast mound. No 
grave goods were associated with this burial. Burial 
80, a young adult found in the debris in Room 159, 
had matting and pottery (a large bowl inverted over 
its head). Burial 81 was an adolescent (possibly 
female) found in Room 43E in a grave (pit). A bowl 
containing a pitcher was found just beyond the pit. 
Between the bowl and the wall was a thin piece of 
polished black slate. Burial 103 was an adult found 
in the southeast refuse mound accompanied by a 
black-on-white bowl and part of a black-on-red 
pitcher. Burial 104 was an adult found in a grave in 
the southeast refuse mound accompanied by a black- 
on-white bowl that contained a corrugated pot. 
Burial 105, a young adult, was found near the 
previous two burials; it had a large and small bowl 
associated with it. No jewelry was found with any of 
these burials. 



This small number of burials contrasts greatly 
with the number of burials from the later occupation 
of the site (see below). Morris (1928:224-225) 
considered this paucity of Chaco burials typical of 
what was found in other large sites of Pueblo Bonito 
and Chetro Ketl in Chaco Canyon. It differs 
markedly from the numbers of burials found in the 
refuse mounds at small sites throughout the San Juan 
Basin. 

Ornaments were recovered from other 
proveniences at Aztec West. Room 47, which 
contained Chaco refuse, had two turquoise beads, one 
turquoise set, three shell bracelets, one shell bead, 
two gilsonite pendants, one selenite pendant, a shell 
bracelet set with turquoise, and two bird bone 
cylinders. Rooms 48 and 54 also had Chaco debris 
and bits of turquoise. Room 65, a Chacoan room, 
had one piece of turquoise. These data from the 
Chacoan occupation do not indicate major amounts of 
jewelry, especially when compared with the large and 
small sites in Chaco Canyon. 

Chimney Rock . Chimney Rock is on a mesa 
near the Piedra River, between Pagosa Springs and 
Durango, CO. Four sites in this area have been 
excavated, including Chimney Rock Pueblo. 
Occupied sites in the area range from ca. A.D. 975 
to 1125. 

Chimney Rock Pueblo was partially excavated 
in 1921 by Jeancon, in 1922 by Roberts, and from 
1970 to 1971 by Eddy. Based on tree-ring dates, this 
Chacoan site was probably occupied from about A.D. 
1076 to 1125 (Eddy 1977). Powers (1974) listed the 
following ornaments: two turquoise pendants from 
Kiva E, a pendant and several tesserae from the fill 
of Room 35, and a pendant and tesserae from the fill 
of Room 1A (see also Jeancon and Roberts 1923-24). 
This is very little for a site with 36 ground floor 
rooms and two Chaco style kivas. 

At small sites in the area, a few ornaments were 
recovered. Roberts (1922:168) excavated several 
Pueblo I villages on the benches and bluffs over the 
Piedra River. He noted ornaments were not 
plentiful; they "include stone, shell and bone beads, 
stone pendants and shell bracelets. Turquoise was 
practically absent, only two small fragments of this 
usually popular stone were found during the entire 
course of this investigation. " 



1184 Chaco Artifacts 



Jeancon and Roberts (1923-24) found a piece of 
turquoise in the fill of Room A at Piedra #2; none 
was reported from Piedra #1. Eddy (1977:56) 
reports only three bone beads from Ravine Site 88 
dating in the late A.D. 1000s; this site had been 
excavated by Truell (1975). Ornaments are scarce in 
the Piedra District. 

Twin Angels . A Chacoan structure with 17 
rooms and two kivas is located on a promontory in 
Kutz Canyon, NM. Two other mounds/structures are 
also found on that formation. Data from the Chacoan 
structure indicate occupation between the mid A.D. 
1000s to mid 1200s. Carlson (1966) reports only one 
fragment of a red and white shell with a hole, 
possibly a bead or pendant, as an item of jewelry. 
This site may be road-related rather than a 
community built by local people. 

Bis sa'ani . In a 67 sq km (26 sq mi) area just 
northeast of Chaco Canyon on the Escavada Wash, 
the main pueblo of Bis sa'ani (30 rooms and five 
kivas) and eight small pueblos of seven rooms or less 
were excavated, as well as seven isolated structures 
and five sherd-lithic scatters (Breternitz et al. 1982). 
Table 10. 17 summarizes the data on ornaments and 
other exotic pieces recovered from this Late Bonito 
Phase community. There were a limited number of 
material types among these artifacts: one piece of 
copper, 11 Olivella, three Olivella da ma, one 
Nassarius, five Glycymeris, one Laevicardium, 19 
bone, one Succinae (a terrestrial mollusk), one ocher, 
two red dog shale, three aragonite, one gypsum, and 
one sandstone. 

As Breternitz (Breternitz et al. 1982: 1079-1084) 
notes during his analysis of bone tools, most of these 
items were probably imported. The bones used to 
make beads, and the style of the tinklers and whistles 
are foreign to the area. This holds true for all 
marine shells and the copper bell. Of 50 items listed, 
only one Succinae mollusk, one piece of ocher, two 
red dog shale, three aragonite, one gypsum, and one 
sandstone or 9/50 (18 percent) were locally available 
materials. There were no turquoise, lignite, or 
calcite ornaments. 

Guadalupe Ruin . The Guadalupe Ruin, a 50- 
room masonry pueblo located on a mesa top in the 
middle Rio Puerco Valley, had evidence of two 
occupations (Pippin 1987:77-85). The earliest 
occupation, ca. early A.D. 900s to mid 1100s, had 



architectural similarities that linked it to Chaco 
Canyon. The later, ca. mid A.D. 1200s to early 
1300s, occupation bore many similarities to the San 
Juan-Mesa Verde Anasazi. 

Because there was much remodeling and reuse 
of earlier rooms by the San Juan-Mesa Verde Anasazi 
(Pippin 1987:108), most ornaments that were 
recovered at this site (Table 10.18) belong to the later 
occupation. The material that can definitely be 
attributed to the Chaco occupation includes five 
ornaments from Room 1W, provenience C216; 10 
from Room 8W (provenience C204), two from Room 
12D (provenience J 109); two from Room 12W 
(provenience G106), and possibly one piece from 
Room 14B (provenience G208). 

Kin Nizhoni Area . Work in the Lake Ambrosia 
area just 3 km west of the Chacoan outlier of Kin 
Nizhoni included excavation of three Pueblo II sites 
(Baugh 1990). At one habitation site, LA50364, four 
rectangular claystone pendants (one from Floor 1 of 
Kiva 2; one in Pit 2) and an azurite nodule (from 
Kiva 2) were recovered. A few bone tubes or beads 
may also have been used as jewelry items, but the 
exact provenience was not easily determined. 

Casamero Ruin . The Casamero Ruin just north 
of Prewitt is a structure with about 22 rooms and a 
kiva. Dated by Sigleo (1981) and Neller (1978) to 
the last half of the eleventh century and early twelfth 
century, it contained very few ornaments and/or 
minerals. The floor of Room 1 had one piece of 
turquoise, one turquoise bead, and some malachite. 
Room 8, floor, had one turquoise pendant; in Level 
7 a piece of chrysocolla was recovered. Room 19, 
surface, had one turquoise pendant fragment. Room 
12 had some malachite on the floor. Two malachite 
fragments were on the bench of Kiva 1. Neller 
(1978:27), who compared the riches of Casamero to 
28 other excavated sites in the Prewitt District, where 
only one piece of turquoise was recovered versus the 
five at Casamero, considered Casamero rich in 
material. 

Switzer (1970) reported on a necklace recovered 
with a burial at Site D4, a small pueblo dating ca. 
A.D. 925 to 1050, about 6.5 miles northwest of 
Prewitt and near Casamero. The necklace, which is 
12' 5" long (37.9 m) when strung, was made from 
discoid black beads interspersed with discoid white 
beads and several flat, bilobed white beads. 



Ornaments 1185 



Table 10.17. Ornamental objects from the Bis sa'ani Community. 1 



Provenience 



No. Description 



Bis sa'ani Pueblo: 

South House, kiva wall 
kiva floor 

Room 1, floor 

Casa Que ma da 

Room 5, floor 

? 

Room 7, floor 

West House, surface 

Rabbit House, wall-fail 
? 
Feature 4 

Rubble mound at base of Rabbit House 



NM-G-27 (isolated site with 2 structures) 

NM-G-63-28 (four-room pueblo) 
Room 2, floor 

NM-G-63-29 (three rooms) 
Room 1, wall-fall 
fill 

Room 2, fill of ventilator 

Kiva 3, midden 



NM-G-63-36 (isolated kiva) 

NM-G-63-16 (three rooms, one kiva) 
Room 2, Fill 
Plaza 



NM-G-63-22 
Ramada, Structure 2, posthole 

NM-G-63-23 (five rooms, 3 pitstructures) 
Pitstructure 6 

Pitstructure 8, trash fill 



Trash Mound, Test Trench 1 

Trash Area 

? 

NM-G-63-26 (five rooms) 
Structure 2 

East Plaza 

? 



NM-G-63-34 (four rooms, one kiva) 
Test Trench, Trash Area 1 



1 

3 


Copper bell 
Olivella sp. shells 


1 


Olive 11a sp. shell 


1 


Nassarius iodes Dall 


7 


Tubular bone beads 


1 


Olivella sp. shell 


1 


Olivella dama 


1 


Olivella dama 


1 
1 


Tubular bone bead 
Bitsitsi bone whistle 


1 


Olivella dama 


1 

1 


Glycymeris sp. 
Bitsitsi bone whistle 



Sandstone bead blank 



1 


Gypsum fragment, drilled in center 


1 


Olivella shell 


1 


Bitsitsi bone whistle 


1 


Olivella bead 


1 


Bone bead 


1 


Tinkler 


1 


Laevicardium sp. shell 


1 


Piece of ocher 


2 

1 
1 


Glvcvmeris bracelet fragments 
Glycymeris bracelet fragment 
Sucinnae - terrestrial mollusk 


1 


Red dog shale pendant 


1 


Olivella sp. shell 


2 


Lepus bone tinklers 


1 
1 


Meleagris bone bead 
Glycymeris bracelet fragment 


1 


Olivella bead 


1 


Lepus bone tinkler 


1 


Marine shell 


1 
3 


Aragonite bead blank 
Bead blanks 


2 


Bone beads (1 Meleagris, 1 Lepus) 


1 


Olivella barrel bead 


1 
1 


Aragonite bead 
Bead 


1 


Red dog shale disk 


1 


Olivella bead 



1 Taken from Breternitz et al. (1982). 



1186 Chaco Artifacts 



.9 

I 
■S 



It 

Is 

or*. 

IS 






■s 



s 

00 







I 




3 



O 
3 

a 









a 



S3 -a «J a 



i si 

Mil 



II 

3 3 






•9 E 

3 a. 

—* M W M 



12 



5 3 j'' ?>a « 

R 2 K r3 .ts «i "^ n 






l J 4*iH34*«hU 

a s £ & :» = ■ ■§ a * •« cs a - •- 



eJH 



ag 



S .sn « lis " 



C-l CO -H CS -H -H -< -H -H -H rt fS 1-1 IH — -H — I -H -H — (*) ^ 






o 



<2.2 B" 



; « '3 j2 -3 

a B 
IS "J 

!j2 o 2 1 
3 »2 






•s 

s 

i 



I 

8 



o 

& 

I 

r- 

o 



u- 



■s 

s 

1 



I 

U 



8. 






Ornaments 1187 





•2 




o 




> 




3 




o 




s 




e 


■a 


3 





l-» 


•c 


c 


u 


« 


0- 


CO 







■s 






2 








^ 




i 

a 


1 


a 
u 


o 

5 


r: 


0) 


% 


1 


•a 

6 

I 


1 

v> 
o 
<s 


oo 






T- 






d 






*■» 






•SJ 


S 




•Q 


8 




£ 


* 





1 


o 

"8 




o 


o 


4> 


> 


> 


> 


a 


S 


a 


V 


u 


s 


s 


% 


s 


e 


a 


c 


§ 


1 


3 


l-l 


>»; 


^ 


e 


c 


c 


<s 


a 


to 


to 


CO 


to 



"2 "2 "2 

o u u 

> > > 



s s s 



CO CO CO 



tsts 

5 o 



« .9 . B 

Igl lg| 

■ill ls«|s|^| *8| 



8.5.3 8* 2.8 







ill 



—I C< <S -H -< ^ — -H — — ■* ^ •<«■ »0 <S -H-H-* 



tits 

§3 § 

^§ Its 5-1 a 

- - © § § &s >.-a 

.g -3 «> «= 3 2 X o 
«> « 3 8 En o e o 



•s 




3 



a to 






J & 

> <0 

m CH 

OB 

— 1<S 



& 

3 



O 

3 

- i 

I 2 

n M 

D..2 



I 

I 





1 




a 




o 




5 








to 
1 


00 


1 

CO 


o 


O 


r-» 




J 


U 



o 



l 

tn 

o 



o 
_o 

E 



o 

o 

I 



u. E 



00 


00 


2? 


2 


2 


2 


o 


o 


o 


to 


CO 


e 








PQ 


U 


P 


CS 


(S 


(S 



1188 Chaco Artifacts 



ft 



1 



.8 



oo 
d 



&s 



■s 

2 

c 
8 

o 

a 

3 



■g 
> 



u 



■s 
> 
s 

i 

c 

<o 

3 
— » 

C 
« 
00 





II 

15? 



• ■eg 



09 _ 

11 



■2 fro* § 9--° 
| £ s 3 | s . 2 

•> S « e 3 2 « 

B.O .2 K 3 o3 -C 



->22j 1 



.Hi 

3 & 



22 

8 



.3 K <S 



"Si 

•s %%% 

« o o P 
•a g 3 B E- 



22 
2 « 

22g 



1 "SB 



a 

?! 



0) »? 



.a »<> 



3 O.SOJ23.S, 3-8 



8 > 
o s 
WO 



o 

I 

3 



3 3 



u a 

Cm U 

3 O 

m a 

% 



o 


1 


© 


O 






O 


Lb 








S 




o 












3 








x> 




a 




<s 


£ 


CQ 


<N 


•* 



t 

O 









1 










« 










| 










o 






8 




8 


8 




06 




& 


E 


mO 


4 


r*i 


r 


4 


o 


o 


© 


o 


o 


3 


u. 


U 


Em! 


£ 



PQ 









Ornaments 1189 



•^ 




5 


o 

g 


e 


4> 


I 


•a 

> 


£ 


1 


00 




♦^ 




d 




*» 




-S> 


& 


"2 


o 
o 


.5 


u. 



> 



I 



! 
I 



GO 



•a 
> 

g 

■u 

s 

c 
<s 

3 
i-i 

S 
« 
to 



■2 

> 

s 

J 

c 
« 

c 



I 



1 

I 

o 

I 
I 

a. 



•2 

o 

> 

s 

1 

s 

as 



s 



.So" 5, 

•°J3 OS 

« — °- 

«00 ;►, 



■2 

> 
s 

3 



c 
« 

CO 



s 

I 

c 

I 

e 

W 

>f 



■8 
■§ 



| 

3 

S5 






2 

.5 a 

II 

o o h 



lilrilill 

0^3 B*- iirS y 5*9 
«2 /**i S O — rt *CV 3 3 

<-) — . ca — — I — I »s — c< 




1 1 

3 



J2 



8-2J2 
■3 " 3 « 2-3 



'§2 



1 8- 



55? 



1.3 3-p<2 
S 3 o o 3 

(N _ _ _ _ 



5 o 

■OU3 32 £>c 

1 s ^ s^ « a * 



U CA 

3-1 





a 




1 « 




rock/i 
neral 
ck/mi 




a"§2 




35 o 


s 


d argi 
fa roc 
irquoi 


a 


235 



| ,H CN -H -H -H -H 



I 

8 



o 
o 

E 

I 

r- 
o 

I 



I 

s 



I 

4 



1 

s 



PQ 



£ 

O* 



3 



1190 Chaco Artifacts 



1 



.8 



oo 
o 



"E 
> 

5 
s 

S 



o 

■8 

> 




■s 

S 

i 





I 5 


1 


o 


o 


CO 

O 



u. U 



8 

I 

S 



c 

g 

H 



P 

MS 



3 






a, 
E 

,2 



Ornaments 1191 



Recovered with this were two argillite bird effigies, 
a Glvcvmeris shell bird effigy, a lignite beetle, a 
lignite button, and a lignite keystone pendant, five 
orange and purplish claystone pendants, five 
turquoise pendants, and a number of Haliotus , 
Glvcvmeris , Cerithidaea . and Olivella shell pieces, all 
thought to be part of the necklace. Other objects 
from the grave included a lignite button and nine 
claystone perforated bead blanks. Switzer (1970:29) 
suggests an early eleventh century date for the 
necklace, and thinks it was probably a personal 
possession of the deceased. As Ellis (1968:64) notes, 
it was a custom of modern Pueblo Indians to bury 
personal possessions with an individual. 

Andrews Site . Not far from Casamero is 
another outlier that has not been excavated; however, 
I had the privilege to review the collection of blue- 
green materials (mostly turquoise, but some azurite 
and malachite) picked up on that site by the owner. 
There were several hundred pieces of turquoise in 
various stages of manufacture, as well as complete 
beads and pendants. All material was from the 
surface of the entire Andrews community, which 
Marshall et al. (1979:117) date between A.D. 950 
and 1050. The area includes a Bonito Phase structure 
with an associated great kiva, as well as 24 other 
sites and two other great kivas. Jacal structures 
indicate that a few sites were inhabited ca. A.D. 800 
in this area. 



recovered. Table 10.19 presents the data gleaned 
from his report. Only the materials in Kiva A, 
sipapu (very small stone beads of ferruginous shale 
and two pieces of turquoise [Roberts 1932:57]) are 
definitely assigned to the Chaco occupation. The 
single slab from Great Kiva 1 (Roberts 1932:Plate 
59k) is probably Chacoan. The remaining pieces 
were recovered either in rooms built later or 
remodeled and used later. 

Even though many of the large sites that are 
known as Chacoan outliers had later occupations, this 
review of excavated outliers and a few surrounding 
sites suggests that sites in Chaco Canyon were much 
richer in ornaments than were contemporary outlying 
sites. Between A.D. 900 and 1050, the exception to 
this is the Andrews community, which is located to 
the south near Prewitt. In the north, the only 
quantities of ornaments appeared with burials of a 
woman and child at the Dominguez Ruin, a small 
house dating ca. A.D. 1080 to 1200. At Salmon 
Ruin, the 88 ornaments were found throughout the 
site, and the survey of the San Juan River indicates 
that some were also found at small sites. At Aztec 
West Ruin, material was also scattered in several 
rooms, but the amounts do not compare with the 
amounts recovered from small sites in Chaco Canyon 
during the Bonito Phase. 

The Mesa Verde Phase 



Village of the Great Kivas . Roberts (1932) 
reports on the Village of the Great Kivas located at 
the mouth of Red Paint Canyon, on the north side of 
Nutria Valley east of Zuni, NM. There were three 
communal structures and two great kivas. House A 
had 64 rooms, three ceremonial chambers, and a 
great kiva. Evidence indicates three construction 
periods beginning ca. A.D. 1000 to 1030. Although 
material from the Chacoan affiliation is present in 
several rooms in House A, sherds from other rooms 
in House A and House B indicate ties to both the 
Upper Gila and Little Colorado, thus, a later use of 
this site and parts of this structure. House B, 
composed of 20 rooms, had evidence of carefully 
worked masonry and enlargements over time. 
Roberts considered it intermediate between the 
earliest and latest occupations at the site. Only one 
room of House C was excavated. 

Roberts (1932:168) reports that few ornaments 
in the shape of beads, pendants, and inlay were 



Only one site from the Chaco Project 
excavations provides data from this period — 29SJ 633 
(Mathien 1991). Marcia Truell and LouAnn 
Jacobson excavated only one-and-a-half rooms at this 
site, so the sample is limited. Numerous ornaments 
and minerals were recovered from the fill and 
materials on Floor 1 of Room 7 and Room 8 (Table 
10.20). The number of ornaments from the A.D. 
1200s occupation suggests a continuing use of these 
items. Truell suggested that the copper bell may 
belong to the earlier occupation or may have been 
collected from another site and curated. The two 
selenite pendants, both from Room 7, suggest a 
greater use of this material for ornaments when 
contrasted with data from earlier occupations in 
Chaco Canyon. 

Procurement . The presence of copper, shell, 
and turquoise probably indicates a continuing 
participation in long-distance trade or scavenging 
from earlier sites. 



1 192 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.19. Ornaments from the Village of the Great Kivas." 



Provenience 


Material b 


Form 


Dating 


Kiva A, sipapu 


S ferr. shale 


S beads 


Chaco occ. 




2 turquoise 


2 pieces 




Great Kiva 1 


1 ? 


1 ? 


? Chaco occ. 


House A, Room 3 1 


1 ?alabaster 


1 pendant 


? 


House A, Room 14 


1 ?alabaster 


1 pendant 


Late occ. 


House A, Room 55 


2 bone 


2 plates 


Late occ. 


House B, Room 2 


1 bone 


1 plate 


Late occ. 


House B, Room 13 


1 ? 


1 ? 


Late occ. 


House B, Room 15 


5+ bone c 


5 beads 


Late occ. 


House B. refuse 


1 ferr. shale 


1 pendant 


Late occ. 



S — scvcrsl 

• Taken from Roberts (1932:57-58, 138-139, 146-147). 

b Plate 59i shows 7 beads, all of Southwestern alabaster, but no proveniences were given. 
c Roberts (1932:138-139) indicates that 110 bone tablets were probably part of a plaque or breast 
plate found on the floor of one of the rooms in House B. 



Production . No workshop areas were found. 
The form of the artifacts does not differ from the 
earlier patterns. 

Distribution and Consumption . Data from this 
site do not suggest any different use of materials. 
Turquoise appeared on the floors of Room 7 and 
Room 8 in small pieces, similar to that in earlier 
sites. 

Comparisons 

Only two other excavated sites are attributed to 
this late occupation at Chaco Canyon. At 29SJ 400 
(Casa Sombreada), which is located on the talus slope 
on the south side of the canyon, a few turquoise, 
shell, and bone ornaments were recovered from the 
limited excavations in this 51 -room pueblo (Mathien 
1985:Appendix C, Table 3). The Gallo Cliff 
Dwelling, 29SJ 540, near the mouth of the Gallo 
Wash, contained only two turquoise pieces and two 
clay figurines (Mathien 1985:Appendix C, Table 10). 

Because of the poor control of data from these 
two sites, the only inference made is that the late 
occupants in Chaco Canyon probably retained the 
ability to acquire ornaments. Alternatively, these 
may have been picked up on other abandoned sites in 
the canyon and reused. I doubt that ornament 
procurement was on the same scale as during the 
Bonito Phase; but until more data are available, this 
will have to remain at the supposition level. 

In contrast to the available material from Chaco 
Canyon, there are more data from outlying sites. 



Wallace Ruin . As noted above, most of the 
ornaments from the Wallace Ruin were attributed to 
the Mesa Verde occupation. Included among them 
were two inlaid bone disks with galena crystals found 
with Burial 3, a 18.+ male found in Feature 17. This 
was the only burial out of 11 that had any grave 
goods, and he belongs with the Mesa Verde 
occupation rather than the Chaco one. Other orna- 
ments included an antler pendant, seven siltstone 
pendants, four sherd pendants, four shell pendants or 
beads, four spring oyster beads/pendants, six shell 
disk beads, four bilobed, figure-eight beads; two jet 
ornaments, three Glycymeris shell bracelet fragments 
that had been modified for suspension; six siltstone 
mosaic pieces, four bone gaming pieces, one stone 
animal fetish, one sandstone human effigy, and five 
Olivella shell beads. The beads were found either 
alone in the fill or in small loose groups on floors. 
Fragments of jet and a bone finger ring were also 
recovered. 

Bradley (1988) commented that there were no 
turquoise artifacts in the Mesa Verde area other than 
those recovered at Badger House Community. 

Aztec Ruin . Morris (1928) obtained many 
ornaments with numerous burials (Table 10.21) from 
the Mesa Verde occupation at Aztec Ruin. 

Burial 14 consists of the remains of at least 15 
infants and small children who were found in the 
refuse in Room 52E. There was a considerable 
wealth of ceramics, 19 stone beads in some state of 
manufacture, 27 complete stone beads, eight crystal 
beads, 64 white discoid beads, 12 gray discoid beads, 



Ornaments 1 193 



Table 10.20. 


Ornaments and minerals from 
the Mesa Verde Phase at 




29SJ 633. 


Material Type 


No. and Pieces 


Argillite 


1 Bead 
1 Modified 
1 Pendant 


Clay stone, green 


1 Bead 


Copper 


1 Bell 


Gypsite 


17 Unmodified 
8- 


Gypsum 


1 Modified 


Hematite 


1 Paintstone 
1 Unmodified 


Lignite 


31 Unmodified 
1 Pendant/effigy 
1 Pendant blank 


Limonite 


1 Modified 


Malachite 


1 - 


Sandstone 


1 Unmodified 


Selenite 


19 Unmodified 
2 Pendants 
5- 


Shale 


1 Pendant 


Shark's tooth 


1 - 


Shell: 




Glvcvmeris 


2 Bracelet fragments 


Lymnaea 


1 Unmodified 


Unidentified 


1 - 


Turquoise 


4 Modified 
1 Pendant blank 
3 Debris 
1 Inlay 


Total 


113 



12 black discoid beads, five miscellaneous beads, 65 
turquoise discoid beads, one hematite animal effigy, 
32 Olivella shell beads, an unidentified shell bead, 
one hematite paint stick, 17 truncated shell beads, 
three cylinder stone beads, 16 bone backings, galena 
crystals, worked greenstone, a piece of hematite, five 
polished stones, and a quartz knife. There were also 
necklaces measuring 6 ft. and 56 ft. (1.8 and 17.1 m, 
respectively) made of black discoid beads estimated 
at 3,100 and 16,600 beads each, plus 14 Olivella 
shell beads, 397 bird bone tubes, eight wing bones, 
and two pieces of worked sandstone. This wealth, 
buried with children, calls to mind the practices of 



the earlier Basketmaker people in northeastern 
Arizona. 

Burial 16, an adult found in the refuse of Room 
41 with another adult and three children also had 
many grave goods (Table 10.22) (Morris 1928:155- 
166). Jewelry included Olivella shells, abalone shell, 
beads and mosaic pendants with the adult, plus an 
Olivella shell anklet. One bird effigy ceramic 
contained 31,000 tiny black discoid beads. Other 
interesting artifacts in the room included 200 
quartzite arrowpoints. Beads, turquoise inlay, and 
mosaic fragments were scattered. Morris listed the 
grave goods; jewelry items and their catalog numbers 
are provided in Table 10.22. Morris (1928:155) 
indicates that some preparation for these burials 
included the scraping away of ash deposits and the 
placement of the burials in the resulting depression. 
The bodies had not been covered until much later. 
The wealth of goods buried with the adult in the 
southeast corner of the room amazed Morris; he 
thought this room might have rivaled Pepper's 
discoveries in Room 33 at Pueblo Bonito, if fire and 
moisture had not taken its toll on the artifacts (Morris 
1928:156). 

Burial 20, an infant, had a string of bone and 
walnut shell beads. It was found on a rush mat in the 
refuse of Room 95. A cradleboard, other vegetal 
material, five pine boards, and a ceremonial stick 
accompanied this burial. 

Burial 25, two adults in Rooms 110, 111, and 
112, were accompanied by turquoise (un worked 
pieces and bits), galena, lignite, and some beads on 
inlay, as well as ceramics, 14 arrowpoints, and other 
goods. Table 10.23 lists other jewelry items 
provided by Morris. Forty-two ceremonial sticks and 
other materials were also recovered. Unfortunately, 
these burials were much disturbed; Morris (1928:164) 
postulates that some of this could be attributed to 
animals, but the lack of turquoise, the incomplete 
large ornaments, and the thorough crushing of 
ornaments suggests human looting as well. Possibly 
the intruders were 1880s relic hunters because names 
are written on the walls in Room 112 (Morris 
1928:357). 

Burial 30, Room 141, had two shell beads. 
Also in Room 141 was Burial 29, which was rifled 
by late nineteenth century visitors (Morris 1928: 167- 
168). It contained 10 bodies (possibly 13-16) relating 



1 194 Chaco Artifacts 

Table 10.21. List of Aztec burials by location." 



Location 



Burial No. 


No. of Burials 


Comments 


1-4 


4 adults 




5 


1 infant 




18 
24 


1 infant 
3 adults 




21 


1 young child 




22 
26 


2 infants 
1 infant 




79-80 


1 elderly female 
1 young adult 




6-7 


1 infant 
1 child 




8 


1 adult, female 




9 


1 adult, female 




10-11 


2 children 




12 


1 adult, male 




13 


1 infant 




14 


15 infants and small children 


Large number of burials 


15 


1 child 




16 


2 adults 

3 children 

+ ? 


Compared with Pueblo 
Bonito material by Morris 


81 


1 slender female 




106-109 


1 adult male 
1 child 
1 adult male 
1 adult female 

1 adult male 
? 3 children 





South Wing 
Room 1 
Room 2 
Room 109 

Room 106 
Room 107 

Room 159 

KivaB 

East Wing 
Room 29 
Room 33 
Room 37 
Room 45 
Room 18 
Room 52 
Room 56 
Room 41 

Room 43 
Room 183 

KivaD 

KivaG 
North Wing 
Room 77 
Room 94 
Room 95 

Rooms 110,111,112 
Room 139 

Room 141 

Room 135 2 
Room 143 
Room 136 2 



17 
19 
20 

25 

27 
28 

29 
30 

34 

35 

36-41 



1 infant 
1 infant 

1 infant 

2 adults 

1 infant 

1 adult, female 

10+ 

1 young child 

1 young adult 

1 young child 

1 small child 
1 infant 

3 children in bin 



Large number of burials; 
many ornaments 



? Large number of burials 



Table 10.21. (continued) 



Ornaments 1195 



Location 



Burial No. 



No. of Burials 



Comments 



Room 153 2 



Room 147 
Room 178 
Room 182 
Room 180 



Room 181 

West Wing 

Room 138 

Room 145 
Room 150 



Room 151 



Room 175 



Room 184 



48-55 



60-61 
83 
88 
89-101 



102 



31 
32 
33 

42 

43 

44 
45 
46 

62-78 



84-87 



110-111 



1 infant 

1 infant 

1 infant 

1 adult, female 

1 child 

1 small child 

3 small children 

1 young female 

2 adults 

adult male 

adult female 

elderly female 
child 
child 

small child 
infant 
child 
infant 
child 

elderly male 
infant 
small child 
elderly female 
elderly adult 

child 



child 

adult, female 

child 

child 

young adult 
small children 
infant 
adult 

adults 
adult 

small child 
child 

small child 
adolescent 
infant 
small child 
infant 
small child 
elderly adult 
adult 
child 
child 

young adult 
infant 
small child 

adolescent 
adolescent 
young adult 
child 

infant 
child 



Large number of burials 



Large number of burials 



Large ? number of burials 



Large number of burials 



1196 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.21. (continued) 



Location 



Burial No. 



No. of Burials 



Comments 



Room 185 



119-28 



South Court 

KivaS 
Annex 

Pit 

Room A. 12 

Room A. 8 

Room A. 11 
Kiva A.l 

Kiva A.5 
Kiva A.7 



N. of Room A. 25 



Refuse 
W. edge of annex 
S. side of annex 
SW refuse mound 
SE refuse mound 
SE refuse mound 



82 



1 elderly female 

1 child 

1 child 

1 child 

1 child 

1 adult 

1 small child 

1 elderly female 

1 elderly person 

1 small child 



1 adult 



23 


1 young person 


47 


1 elderly male 
1 elderly female 


112-113 


1 infant 

1 small child 


114 


1 small child 


116-118 


1 small child 

1 infant 

1 elderly adult 


135-138 


1 adult male 
1 infant 
1 adult 
1 adolescent 


139-143 


2 adult 

1 infant 

1 young adult 

1 child 

1 small child 


129-134 


1 adult 
1 child 
1 infant 
1 small child 
1 adult 
1 infant 


56 


1 elderly male 


115 


1 child 


57 


1 infant 


58-59 


2 adults 


103-105 


3 adults 



Large number of burials 



Large ? number of burials 



Large ? number of burials 



' Taken from Morris (1928:139-225). 



Ornaments 1 197 



Table 10.22. Grave goods found with Burial 16, Aztec Ruin. 



Catalog No. 



Description 



7925 

7926 

7927 

7928 

7929 

7930 

7931 

7932 

7933-39 

7940 

7941 

7942-5 

7946-8 

7949 

7950 

7951 

7952 

7953 

7954-70 

7971 

7972 

7973 

7974 

7975-77 

7978 

7979 

7980 

7981 

7982 

7983 

7984 

7985 

7986 

7987 

7988 

7989 

7990-92 

7993 

7998 



Necklace with about 400 Olivella shells 
Necklace with about 400 Olivella shells 
Anklet with about 70 Olivella shells 
70 Olivella shells 
33 Conus shell beads 

3 Conus shell beads 

6 Pelecypod shells 

I Large Gastropod shell pendant 

7 Abalone shell pendants 
Fragments of abalone shells 
Abalone shell, beads, and bone 

4 Shell disk pendants 

4 Shell disks 

Worked shell with mosaic 

5 Worked shells 
Inlaid shell 

172 Large disk-shaped beads 

I I Large cylindrical beads 
Several hundred beads 

Beads, mosaic fragments, bits of shell and turquoise 

Flat irregular beads, mostly turquoise 

Frog-shaped beads 

Spherical pendant of turquoise matrix 

Rectangular shell beads 

Disk-shaped beads 

Beads, bits of turquoise, galena, etc. 

36 Figure-eight beads 

57 feet (ca. 31,000) tiny black disk beads 

15 feet (ca. 8,500) tiny pink disk beads 

Beads 

39 Tubular bone beads 

Several hundred mosaic fragments, turquoise, galena, lignite, and stone 

Shell fragments 

Conus sp. shell 

10 Bird bone tubes 

6 Bird bone tubes 

Unknown number of bird bone tubes 

Jasper drill, fragments of stone and galena 

Galena crystals 



1198 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.23. Grave goods found with Burial 
25, Aztec Ruin. 

No. of Items Description 

95 Low-grade turquoise beads 

1 Large low-grade cylindrical turquoise bead 
21 High-grade turquoise disk beads 

2 Cylindrical beads 
1 Massive amethyst 
1 Spherical bead 

Copper ore 
10 Lignite beads 

1 Lignite pendant 

2 Button beads of yellow stone 

1 Stone or shell rectangular bead 

1 Stone pendant 

3 Abalone shell pendants 
16 Shell beads 

2.3 feet of Olivella shells 
10 Olivella shell beads 

12 feet of black and white beads 
13.4 feet of white beads 
150 Black disk beads 
9 White beads (4) and black beads (5) 



to possibly one adult, but also infants and children up 
to 12-15 years of age. They had cotton cloth, 
matting, buckskin, and a few ceramics with them, but 
no ornaments. 

Burial 35 from Room 143 is a young child who 
had two shell beads, a red stone pendant, and a 
lignite pendant. Also with this burial were a 
cradleboard, ceramics, rush matting, and a digging 
stick. The burial was in a pit. 

Burial 40, a child in a bin in Room 136, was 
found with two strands — one with 30 white beads, 
one black and two Olivella beads. The other strand 
had 18 white beads and one turquoise bead. Also in 
this bin were two other small children with no 
ornaments; the rest of the room contained a small 
child and two infants, also without ornaments (Burials 
36-39, 41). 



Burial 42, another child from Room 145, had a 
red stone pendant. 

Burial 75, a child recovered from Room 151, had 
16 bird bone tubes that were presumed to be beads, 
plus a mug, part of a bowl, and rush matting. Also 
in this room were 17 other bodies: five adults, one 
young adult, one adolescent, two other children, five 
small children, and three infants. 

Burial 83, an adult male from a pit in Room 178, 
was named the warrior. His grave was in a pit sunk 
into the floor, and the body was accompanied by 
numerous grave goods. Among these goods was a 
shield decorated with flakes of selenite, and a design 
painted in dark red and greenish-blue colors. 
Ceramics, bone awls, a knife, and axes indicated that 
this man was a warrior buried with honor. 
Accompanying him were a spherical lignite ornament 
and a strand of 17 white beads, eight lignite beads, 
two red disks, and two oval pieces of turquoise. He 
is the only burial in this room. 

Burial 100 was an old female found in Room 
180. She had two greenstone disks and a small piece 
of turquoise among her grave goods. In the room 
with her were 12 other burials ranging from infants 
to adults, but none with ornaments. They had 
matting, feather cloth and two instances of pottery. 

Burial 115, a child found in the refuse south of 
the annex, had a number of beads: nine lignite, one 
yellow stone, 11 white, one red, two Olivella. and 
one shell. 

Burial 133 was an adult from Kiva 4 of the 
Annex. It was accompanied by an Olivella shell bead 
and other non-ornamental grave goods. Ceramics, a 
digging stick, feather cloth, and rush matting were 
also found. 

Kiva G produced many broken beads, fragments 
of abalone, and other shell ornaments. Based on the 
presence of granules of a porous iridescent substance 
that was identical to charred flesh recovered in Kiva 
D, Morris (1928:213) surmised a burial of an infant 
or small child. 

Additional jewelry items were found at this site. 
In Room 109, there were two stone pendants, five 
turquoise and shell beads, three pieces of worked 



Ornaments 1 199 



turquoise, seven pieces of worked stone, and one 
crescent-shaped stone ornament. 

Rooms 83, 100, and 125 (second story) had one 
turquoise bead, a piece of turquoise, and turquoise 
and shell mosaic. These latter rooms were attributed 
to the San Juan-Mesa Verde occupation. One copper 
bell, also attributed to this last occupation, was found 
in Room 64. 

Morris (1928:221-222) did not consider any of 
the burials to have been placed in a formal burial 
chamber; however, he does note that many were 
placed in unused rooms, some of which contained 
several intentionally excavated pits, e.g., Room 151 
where the pits were dug into the initial fill of the 
room. He noted that three rooms, Rooms 153, 
second story, 180, and 185 were used repeatedly for 
burials because the skeletons appear from top to 
bottom of the refuse. This is somewhat comparable 
to the burials in Room 33 in Pueblo Bom to, which 
Akins (1986) considers a formal burial area of the 
site. Perhaps these later inhabitants of Aztec West 
continued practices initiated earlier in Anasazi 
prehistory. 

The differences in amounts and types of burial 
goods of the 178.+ burials, attributed to the Mesa 
Verde Phase occupation at Aztec, is marked. Some 
had little, if any, grave goods while others had 
considerable amounts (Burials 14, 16, 25 and 83). 

A tri-wall structure built over earlier structural 
remains in the nearby Hubbard Site produced only 
three pieces of shell. A fragment of a shell bracelet, 
an Olivella shell, and a small saucer-shaped bead 
were reported by Vivian (1959:60). This contrasts 
with nine pieces of turquoise from Room 8 of the tri- 
wall structure at Pueblo del Arroyo, which had five 
pendants, two beads, and two fragments, all 
turquoise. 

Richert (1964) excavated a small section of the 
East Ruin at Aztec. Only one bone pendant or 
bracelet was among the artifacts he reported. This 
site had two occupations, one in the early A.D. 1 100s 
and one in the mid A.D. 1200s. 

Salmon Ruin . Table 10.24 is a compilation of 
McNeil's data for ornaments from the San Juan-Mesa 
Verde occupation at Salmon Ruin. Many of them 
were recovered from the area around the Tower Kiva 



(Room 64), but McNeil's (1986) evaluation of the 
data did not suggest that people living in other areas 
of the site had any less access to these objects. 

Shumwav Pueblo (LA 3682) . A 14-room 
irregularly shaped structure, dating ca. A.D. 1150 to 
1250, is located on the northern end of the San Juan 
Mine lease, not far from Shiprock, NM (Kemrer et 
al. 1980). Swift (1980:92-99) indicates that the 
claystone ornaments that were found were crafted at 
this site. Marilyn Swift (personal communication, 
1981) indicates the source for the claystone was 
discovered in the area along the north bank of the 
San Juan River. This is evidence for a continuation 
of ornament production in the San Juan River basin. 

Guadalupe Ruin . As noted above, most of the 
ornaments recovered at Guadalupe were attributed to 
the Mesa Verde Phase occupation. Pippin (1987) 
found 20 rectangular or triangular pendants (ten 
turquoise, three chrysacolla, four tufa, one red 
argillite, one selenite, one nacrous shell), two disk- 
shaped pendants (one red argillite, one steatite), two 
fossil Pelecypoda shells, one Antilocapra bone, 56 
stone beads (49 tufa, three hematite, three turquoise, 
one red argillite), and a number of Olivella sp. shells. 
A group of 515 aragonite/calcite beads were found in 
Room 22 W (Table 10.18). He also recovered one 
Conus sp. shell, several inlays (two jet, turquoise, 
chrysocolla, tufa, shale), an unfinished shell pendant, 
and modified raw materials. Table 10.18 lists these 
by provenience. 

There are other sites in the area, but only a few 
have been excavated. Davis and Winkler (1959) 
excavated six rooms of a 60-room site dated to the 
Mesa Verde Black-on-white period; they reported no 
ornaments. At Prieta Vista, a 15-room pueblo dating 
ca. A.D. 1220 to 1240, Bice and Sundt (1968:93) 
note that few ornaments were recovered. Stone 
beads and pendants of locally available white or red 
calcareous limestone-like rock, three pieces of 
turquoise, one malachite piece, and a fossil shell 
pendant comprise the entire lot. 

Discussion 

Materials— Types and Sources 

The available data provide some evidence of 
change through time in the use of locally available 
materials and those that would have been imported 



1200 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.24. Ornaments and ornament-related materials from the 
Mesa Verdean occupation at Salmon Ruin." 



Provenience 



No. 



Material 



Room 5 (kiva) (MV) 
1 ornament 


1 


Shale, baked 


Room 6 (kiva) (MV) 
4 ornaments 
20 non-ornaments 


2 
1 

6 

1 


Azurite 

Chalcedony-agate 
Gypsum-selenite 
Hematite-other 


Room 11 


15 
4 
1 


Gypsum-selenite 
Shale, baked 
Shell 


Room IIP 


1 


Hematite-other 


Room 15P 


2 


Gypsum-selenite 


Room 16P 


2 


Gypsum-selenite 


Room 18P 


15 


Gypsum-selenite 


Room 19P 


2 


Gypsum-selenite 


Room 21 P 


3 


Gypsum-earthy 


Room 30B (MV mix) 
Room 30W had 9 ornaments, 
(8 of which were exotic) 


5 
3 
1 


Gypsum-selenite 
Shale, baked 
Shell 


Room 31 (MV mix) 
Room 31W had 1 exotic ornament 


1 
4 


Jet 
Gypsum-selenite 


Room 33 


1 


Jet 


Room 33B (MV) 
1 exotic ornament 


1 


Shell 


Room 33C (kiva) (MV) 
1 ornament 
24 non-ornaments 


7 


Gypsum-selenite 


Room 36 


1 

30 
33 

4 

1 

1 

2 

5 


Turquoise 

Gypsum-earthy 

Gypsum-selenite 

Kaolin 

Hematite-earthy 

Mudstone-siltsone 

Shale, baked 

Shells 


Room 37 


11 
1 

1 


Gypsum-selenite 

Hematite-other 

Shell 


Room 37A 


1 


Malachite 


Room 43W 


1 


Gypsum-selenite 


Room 51 (MV) 

4 ornaments, 2 exotic 
1 non-ornament 


2 
5 


Turquoise 
Gypsum-selenite 


Room 57 (MV) 
14 ornaments, 1 exotic 
9 non-ornaments 


1 

13 
5 

1 


Turquoise 
Calcite-vein 
Gypsum-selenite 
Shale, baked 


Room 58 (MV) 

7 ornaments, 2 exotic 
12 non-ornaments 


1 

12 
1 

1 

1 
2 


Turquoise 

Gypsum-selenite 

Hematite-other 

Mudstone-siltstone 

Shale, baked 

Shells 



Table 10.24. (continued) 



Ornaments 1201 



Provenience 



No. 



Material 



Room 59 (MV) 
23 ornaments, 2 exotic 
53 non-ornaments 


2 
2 
3 

22 
1 
9 
2 


Jet 

Turquoise 

Gypsum-earthy 

Gypsum-selenite 

Hematite-other 

Shale, baked 

Shells 


Room 62 (MV i 
Room 62W 
12 ornaments, 


mix) 
3 exotic 


5 

2 

1 
64 

1 

1 


Turquoise 

Calcite-vein 

Gypsum-earthy 

Gypsum-selenite 

Shale, baked 

Shell 


Room 62A (MV) 

2 ornaments, 1 exotic 
9 non-ornaments 


4 


Hematite-other 


Room 64 (Tower kiva) (MV) 
54 ornaments, 4 exotic 
3 non-ornaments 


8 

2 

1 

42 


Jet 

Turquoise 

Hematite-other 

Shells 


Room 67 (MV) 
1 1 ornaments, 2 exotic 
36 non-ornaments 


1 

12 
1 
2 

1 


Gypsum-earthy 

Gypsum-selenite 

Hematite-other 

Shells 

Lapidolite 


Room 80 




9 

4 


Gypsum-selenite 
Hematite-other 


Room 81 




2 
3 


Gypsum-earthy 
Gypsum-selenite 


Room 82 




3 
3 
15 
1 
1 
1 
1 


Jet 

Gypsum-earthy 

Gypsum-selenite 

Kaolin 

Hematite-earthy 

Shale, baked 

Shell 


Room 84 




1 
1 
3 

1 


Quartz crystal 
Calcite-vein 
Gypsum-selenite 
Shale, baked 


Room 86 (MV) 

6 ornaments, common 
11 non-ornaments 


1 
7 
1 
1 
1 
2 


Calcite-vein 

Gypsum-selenite 

Hematite-earthy 

Hematite-other 

Shale-other 

Shale, baked 


Room 88 




5 


Gypsum-selenite 


Room 89 




45 
4 
2 
1 


Gypsum-earthy 
Gypsum-selenite 
Hematite-other 
Shale-baked 


Room 90 




1 
1 
4 
1 
2 


Turquoise 

Calcite-vein 

Gypsum-selenite 

Shale-baked 

Shells 


Room 91 




1 
4 
15 
3 


Calcite-vein 
Gypsum-earthy 
Gypsum-selenite 
Gypsum-satin 


Room 91 A 




2 


Shells 


Room91C and91D 


2 


Hematite-other 



1202 Chaco Artifacts 



Table 10.24. (continued) 



Provenience 



No. 



Material 



Room 92 (kiva) (MV) 
4 ornaments 
2 non-ornaments 

Room 93 (MV mix) 
Room 93W 
9 ornaments, 3 exotic 



Room 94 (kiva) (MV) 
Room 94W 
13 ornaments, 1 exotic 
4 non-ornaments 

Room 96 (kiva) (MV) 
2 ornaments, 1 exotic 
Room 96W (MV mix) 
2 ornaments, 1 exotic 

Room 97A 

Room 98 



Room 100 (MV mix) 
Room 100W 
35 ornaments, 81 exotic 



Room 101 
Room 102 



Room 102 A (MV mix) 
10 ornaments, common 

Room 102 A and 102B (MV) 
3 non-ornaments 

Room 118 



Room 119 



Room 121 (kiva)(MV) 
(MV mix) 
10 ornaments, exotic 

Room 121A 



1 


Gypsum-selenite 


1 

22 
1 

2 


Turquoise 
Gypsum-selenite 
Shale-baked 
Shells 


1 
2 
1 
1 


Quartz crystal 
Gypsum-selenite 
Hematite-earthy 
Shell 


1 
1 


Turquoise 
Gypsum-selenite 


1 


Gypsum-selenite 


10 
1 
1 


Turquoise 

Gypsum-selenite 

Hematite-other 


1 

5 

4 

104 

2 
3 

1 
1 
2 
7 
2 


Jet 

Turquoise 

Gypsum-earthy 

Gypsum-selenite 

Gypsum-satin 

Calcite-spar 

Serpentine 

Hematite-earthy 

Hematite-other 

Shale-baked 

Shells 


1 

2 


Turquoise 
Gypsum-selenite 


8 
2 
10 
1 


Calcite-vein 
Gypsum-earthy 
Gypsum-selenite 
Kaolin 


1 


Hematite-other 


2 


Shale-baked 


2 
1 


Gypsum-selenite 
Gypsum-satin 


12 
1 


Gypsum-selenite 
Hematite-other 


1 

34 


Turquoise 
Gypsum-selenite 


1 
1 


Hematite-other 
Shell 



Room 123 A (MV) 
no ornaments 
1 non-ornament 


1 


Shell 


Room 124 (kiva) (MV) 
4 ornaments 
15 non-ornaments 


7 


Gypsum-selenite 


Room 127 (kiva) (MV) | 
19 ornaments, 1 exotic 
31 non-ornaments 


1 

11 
5 
1 


Jet 

Gypsum-selenite 

Hematite-other 

Shale-baked 



Ornaments 1203 



Table 10.24. (continued) 



Provenience 



Room 128 (MV) 
1 ornament, exotic 

Room 128 A 

Room 129 



Room 130 (Great kiva) (MV) 
(MV mix) 
20 ornaments, 6 exotic 



Room 151 (MV) 
1 ornament 
13 non-ornaments 



TOTAL 



No. 



Material 



1 
1 
1 
9 

34 
6 
1 
1 
2 

1 

32 
6 
2 
5 

3 
1 
1 

954 



Gypsum selenile 



Shell 

Jet 

Turquoise 

Azurite 

Gypsum-earthy 

Gypsum-selenite 

Gypsum-satin 

Hematite-earthy 

Hematite-other 

Shells 

Turquoise 

Gypsum-earthy 

Gypsum-selenite 

Shale-other 

Shale-baked 

Gypsum-selenite 
Hematite-earthy 
Shale-baked 



Taken from McNeil (1986:Tables 51-58). Comments in the first column reflect information 
taken from other segments of this thesis. The numbers do not add up, but no additional 
information was available to clarify these discrepancies. 



from some distance. During the mid- Archaic, Chaco 
Canyon inhabitants used bone, seed, shale, and wood 
for jewelry items. All these materials were available 
in the local area. They probably used materials from 
the San Juan Basin as well; this is evident by the 
recovery of the piece of malachite and the freshwater 
shell. 

Access to turquoise and shell is documented 
with the first evidence of pithouses, the architectural 
feature that suggests permanent settlements or 
sedentary life for much of the year during 
Basketmaker III in Chaco Canyon. Although the 
exact sources of turquoise are not positively 
identified, known source areas, all of which have 
evidence of prehistoric use (Bennett 1966), are 
beyond the boundaries of the San Juan Basin. The 
presence of marine shells (Olivella da ma and 
Glvcvmeris gigantea) indicates participation in a long- 
distance trade network that extends as far west and 
south as the Gulf of California. By the end of the 
Basketmaker HI and beginning of the Pueblo I period, 
Haliotus shells indicate expansion of this trade 
network to include the Pacific Ocean. There is also 
evidence of use of more materials that were available 
both locally and in the San Juan Basin. 



Although the distances from which materials 
were imported do not change after this time, the 
number of minerals and types of shell increase during 
the Bonito Phase. This was evident during the Early 
Bonito Phase (A.D. 920 to 1020); in particular, the 
number of shell species at 29SJ 627 support this 
inference. Yet new shell species are also found 
among small as well as large sites throughout the 
Bonito Phase. Excluding data on the three shell 
species indicated above, the other shell species are 
almost equally distributed among sites surveyed and 
excavated by Chaco Project staff (Mathien 
1984a:Table 1). Recovery of macaw remains at 29SJ 
1360 confirms ties in trade to the south (northern 
Mexico). The introduction of copper bells during the 
Classic Bonito Phase (A.D. 1020 to 1120) reinforces 
this southern trade tie. By the Late Bonito Phase 
(A.D. 1120 to 1220), the number of ornaments 
seemingly decrease, but a new shell taxon, Nassarius. 
was documented at the previously excavated site of 
Kin Kletso (Vivian and Mathews 1965). 

The latest Anasazi occupation of Chaco Canyon 
has been named the Mesa Verde Phase (A.D. 1220 to 
1320) because of many similarities in material culture 
between remains found in Chaco Canyon and those 



1204 Chaco Artifacts 



found farther north in the area of Mesa Verde. 
Considering that data from excavated sites in Chaco 
Canyon are very limited, they do not suggest any 
major change in the use of materials. Marcia Truell 
(personal communication, 1980), however, thought 
that some of these items may have been scavaged 
from earlier sites. Review of materials from sites to 
the north, specifically large sites located along the 
San Juan River and its major tributaries, support the 
inference of continued use of the same materials. 

In summary, there is evidence that numbers and 
types of material increased through time. Sources of 
these materials cover many directions and extend for 
considerable distances. The earliest inhabitants were 
probably hunters and gatherers who ranged over the 
San Juan Basin and its peripheries, collecting items 
during their yearly round. With the beginnings of 
sedentary life, however, sources of materials were 
greatly expanded. By the height of the Chaco 
Phenomenon, these areas were located as far west as 
the Pacific Ocean and south into northern Mexico, 
and were documented as trade nodes during the 
historic period (Bandelier 1892), indicating 
continuation of some similarity in patterns developed 
in early Anasazi times by their descendents. 

Jewelry-making — Technology, Location, and 
Personnel 

Technology 

Chaco Canyon inhabitants probably used a 
technology developed by their neighbors and possibly 
their ancestors. Jernigan's (1978) review of the data 
on jewelry-making in the Southwest indicates that 
numerous materials were used quite early, during the 
Desert Tradition. Shells and other materials that are 
as hard as 3 1/2-4 or 5 on Moh's scale were being 
shaped into ornaments, but most of the work was not 
as sophisticated as that for ornaments from the 
Basketmaker II period in northeastern Arizona. 
Kidder and Guernsey's (1919) description of the 
black lignite beads that had small perforations and 
retained their polish and luster at the time of 
excavation, and their description of a graduated bead 
necklace from White Dog Cave (Guernsey and 
Kidder 1921) indicate that the Anasazi developed the 
technology for manufacture of fine jewelry quite 
early. This technology was used on harder materials, 
including turquoise, by Basketmaker III for certain, 



but no harder materials were successfully drilled and 
used in quantity after this period. 

This technology included mining, shaping and 
grinding, drilling, and polishing. Mining was 
probably not complicated. Many of the materials 
could be removed from the earth or sea by gathering 
them up, while some would have required a stone 
hammer or maul to help in extraction. Turquoise 
was probably the most difficult mineral to mine. My 
emphasis here is not on turquoise nodules; there are 
few of these recovered in archeological sites. Vein 
material is predominant and the removal of turquoise 
from a vein requires separation from a hard matrix. 
The host rock would have to be carefully removed so 
that thin veins of turquoise would not shatter, or 
tooled in a way that some matrix remained as a 
backing for an ornament, such as a pendant. As 
modem miners learned, breaking up large areas with 
explosives is not feasible. To obtain good seams 
requires careful work. The presence of hammers and 
lapstones at prehistoric mining areas, such as 
Cerrillos (Warren and Mathien 1985), reflects 
Anasazi understanding of this problem. 

Jernigan (1978) reviewed detailed methods of 
grinding and shaping, polishing, and drilling, but I 
would like to emphasize one point — the drilling tools 
used for making stone beads. How to make the tiny 
perforations in discoid beads remains a subject of 
discussion among archeologists and students of 
prehistoric jewelry. The main question is the 
material that was used as a drill; some have 
suggested cactus spines, porcupine quills, or various 
types of stone tips. Stone tips may not have been 
small enough to achieve the tiny perforations found 
among the Chaco turquoise beads. McNeil 
(1986:114) considered the ends of wet cane or wet 
cacti dipped in sand as a possible method. 

Bone beads, on the other hand, were not drilled, 
but there are also several steps in their manufacture. 
Larry V. Nordby (personal communication, 1985) 
indicated that the Basketmaker III pithouses at Pecos 
contained evidence of a complete series of well- 
developed manufacturing techniques for making 
tubular bone beads. All inferences were based on the 
manufacturing attributes present on the bone and on 
the long bones that were discarded. The methods 
include sectioning the long bones by removing the 
epiphyseal ends, circumferentially scoring the shaft 



Ornaments 1205 



about halfway through to the marrow cavity, then 
snapping off the pieces, and grinding the ends to 
various degrees. Polishing (if done for aesthetics 
rather than as a result of wearing the beads) was last, 
rather than first, based on the overlap of the 
attributes. In Chaco Canyon, no analysis of this type 
of manufacturing has been done. 

The ornaments recovered from Archaic- 
Basketmaker II and Basketmaker III sites in Chaco 
Canyon do not suggest that great skill was needed in 
their preparation. This contrasts with the skill needed 
to make the black beads recovered by Kidder and 
Guernsey. The nicely made turquoise beads with tiny 
perforations and beautiful polish found at Kin 
Nahasbas and Pueblo Bonito, however, indicate even 
more sophistication by the Bonito Phase. These 
pieces are as beautiful as any that can be made today 
using metal tools and high technology. 

Location 

Jewelry workshop areas are difficult to identify 
prior to the Early Bonito Phase (A.D. 920 to 1020). 
The evidence from Shabik'eshchee Village may 
indicate that someone made a few pieces of jewelry 
now and then, possibly in the plaza area. The large 
amount of turquoise debris recovered at 29SJ 629, 
both modified and unmodified, indicates that 
inhabitants at this site spent considerable time and 
effort at this task. Other workshop areas have been 
identified in Chaco Canyon and throughout the 
Anasazi world, but none are as close together in 
space and time as those in Chaco Canyon. Even 
though there is some evidence that other materials 
were made into jewelry items (Mathien 1984a), those 
in Chaco Canyon were probably turquoise specific. 

Personnel 

Who made beads and how much effort was 
involved in jewelry-making changes through time in 
Chaco Canyon. During Basketmaker III, the quantity 
and quality of jewelry items indicates that inhabitants 
of Chaco Canyon may have made their own jewelry; 
the items are fairly crude compared to what is found 
during the Bonito Phase. They are also crude when 
compared to the material found earlier by Kidder and 
Guernsey (1919) in northeastern Arizona. Workshop 
areas identified during the Early Bonito Phase 
indicate that considerable time was spent at this task 
and that it was probably performed in plazas or 



kivas. Estimates of the time involved in drilling 
suggest that it was time-consuming to make a 
necklace; therefore, someone probably devoted a 
major part of his/her efforts to its preparation. 
Evidence from 29SJ 629 suggests that one or two 
families may have specialized in this craft, while 
other neighbors pursued different tasks. The amount 
of time involved may indicate either full or part-time 
specialization; this question cannot be resolved at 
present. 

The evidence recorded by Windes (1993), while 
surveying sites in the eastern part of the Chaco 
Wash, and the material from the Andrews Site 
suggests to me that beginning in the A.D. 900s 
jewelry workers may have lived in the eastern half of 
Chaco Canyon or in sites located to the south of it. 
Later evidence for the location of turquoise jewelry- 
making centers around Pueblo Bonito and the center 
part of the canyon. 

Social Organization 

The data indicate several changes in the pro- 
curement, production, distribution and consumption 
of ornaments over time. During the mid- Archaic, the 
inhabitants of Chaco Canyon were using bone, seed, 
shale, and wood beads, all materials which were 
available in the local area. By Basketmaker III, there 
were settled villagers living in Chaco Canyon. Like 
their counterparts in other areas of the Anasazi 
world, they had access to turquoise and shell which 
had to be imported from long distances as far as the 
Gulf of California. The number of ornaments did not 
vary much from those found in other Anasazi sites; 
unfortunately, we have no available data on Chacoan 
burials from this period to compare with the 
abundance of ornaments found with burials during 
Basketmaker II and Basketmaker III in sites in 
northeastern Arizona. 

A major change in the availability of trade 
goods occurs in the Early Bonito Phase (A.D. 920 to 
1020), when the first turquoise workshop areas are 
defined. Greater numbers of and better made 
ornaments of all types, in addition to the use of 
turquoise for offerings, are evident between A.D. 
1020 and 1120 in Chaco Canyon, although offerings 
may have been placed in great kivas as early as the 
A.D. 500s. Workshop areas have been identified in 
Chaco Canyon sites throughout the entire Bonito 
Period. Ornaments continue to be found in small 



1206 Chaco Artifacts 



sites in Chaco Canyon throughout the Mesa Verdean 
Phase; however, the limited data do not provide more 
than basic information. 

Examination of grave goods found with Chaco 
Canyon burials, as well as the areas where burials 
were placed, led Akins (Akins 1986; Akins and 
Schelberg 1984) to conclude that status differentiation 
did occur during the Bonito Phase. Besides dividing 
the burial population into at least two major strata, 
Akins (1986; Akins and Schelberg 1984) suggested 
that the superordinate group consisted of two ranking 
lineages based on discriminant analysis of cranial 
measurements and the presence of two burial clusters 
in Pueblo Bonito (the north versus the west rooms). 

Comparisons of data from excavated outlying 
Early Bonito Phase Chacoan structures suggests that 
in the Early Bonito Phase, the only outlier with any 
quantity of ornaments is the Andrews site, located to 
the south near Prewitt. Judge (personal communi- 
cation, 1980) noted considerable amounts of turquoise 
on the surface of San Mateo Ruin, another Chacoan 
structure in the same area. Two small sites also had 
larger than usual amounts of jewelry, one with a 
burial. By the Late Bonito Phase, only Salmon and 
Aztec Ruins, located to the north, have indications of 
ornamental wealth. The small house at Dominguez 
also had one burial with an unusual amount of 
jewelry. 

During the thirteenth century, sites with a "San 
Juan/Mesa Verde" occupation exhibit larger amounts 
of ornamental items. These include Aztec West Ruin 
(the largest outlier with the greatest amount), Salmon 
Ruin, and Guadalupe Ruin. No definite workshops 
have been identified during this period, but Morris 
(1928) did note some debris in several rooms at 
Aztec West. 

Whether or not an incipient stratified society 
existed among the Anasazi during the Late Bonito and 
"San Juan/Mesa Verde" periods cannot be determined 
at present. The limited review of the data from 
outliers presented above suggests that there may be 
some validity to this idea. A more detailed study, 
however, must be undertaken to evaluate this 
hypothesis. 

Based on the available evidence, it is inferred 
that Chaco Canyon was a center for production and 
consumption of turquoise, particularly between A.D. 



920 and 1120. The evidence from the A.D. 1120 to 
1220 period is difficult to evaluate due to the lack of 
tight control of data and provenience locations at 
many sites. By the thirteenth century, however, a 
shift from Chaco Canyon to the San Juan River may 
have occurred. At both Salmon and Aztec, a larger 
number of ornaments were recovered during the latest 
occupations. Although this may be partly due to 
reuse of earlier rooms (thus removal of data), it may 
also indicate a shift in location for the higher status 
individuals who provided the leadership necessary to 
keep the far-flung Anasazi world in operation. Data 
from Guadalupe also indicate more ornaments from 
the thirteenth century occupation of that outlier. 
Because this examination did not encompass the 
entire Anasazi data base in detail, no definitive 
statements can be made. Data from the ornament 
study seems to follow a similar shift in association 
from the south in the A.D. 900s to the north in the 
A.D. 1100s, as does evidence from studies of 
ceramics (Toll et al. 1980) and lithics (Cameron and 
Sappington 1984). 

The data from the Aztec complex, especially 
Aztec West Ruin, indicate that the leadership of this 
Anasazi system may have relocated after A.D. 1100. 
The data from ceramic evidence, chipped stone, and 
the architecture all show some comingling of Chaco 
traits in the northern part of the San Juan Basin 
through the Bonito Phase. In Chaco Canyon, there 
seems to be an increased interaction with sites in the 
San Juan River Valley area during the Late Bonito 
Phase; the outliers with a Mesa Verde late occupation 
are numerous and perhaps, as McKenna (1991) 
suggests, there is a shift in centrality for the Anasazi 
system. 

Several other inferences about social 
organization can be evaluated. Data from various 
sites excavated by the Chaco Project shed additional 
light on some of Judd's (1954) observations. 

With regard to source materials, the Chaco 
Anasazi did use both local materials as well as those 
imported from long distances. Akins (1986; Akins 
and Schelberg 1981, 1984) points out, however, that 
the use of great quantities of turquoise and marine 
shell tends to be limited to society's upper strata. 
Although a few pieces of turquoise or shell are found 
with inhabitants of village sites, the great volume of 
imported material was recovered from Pueblo Bonito, 
where the best prepared burial chambers were 



Ornaments 1207 



located. Black shale and calcite beads, both available 
from closer sources, were found with villagers, 
particularly the female from 29SJ 1360. 

Judd (1954) noted a great number of imported 
Chama echinata shells in the Late Bonito rooms. 
Data on the introduction of shell species at excavated 
sites confirms an increase in the number and types of 
shell after A.D. 920, particularly around A.D. 1000 
to 1050. 

Based on the analysis of materials, especially 
discoid calcite and shell beads, I am not confident 
that material types have always been correctly 
identified in the literature (Mathien 1984a, 1992a). 
A reexamination of old collections is necessary to 
clarify this problem. 

Judd (1954:86-87) noted most mineral beads 
were discoid. The data in this study are in agreement 
with his observations. Regarding the process of bead 
manufacture, the only major point that can be added 
to Judd's observations is the tool for drilling. At 
29SJ 628, 29SJ 626, and 29SJ 392, the presence of 
small chalcedonic silicified wood (#1140) drills, as 
well as turquoise debris, abraders, and porcupine 
quills in Other Pit 1 of the Plaza at 29SJ 629, 
indicates that these drills may have been used to 
perforate the larger beads. This does not seem likely 
for the smaller beads, however, because the drill tips 
were too large and conical. 

Olivella shells were most often ground only at 
the tip, and only a few saucer-shaped shells were 
recovered. Bilobed or figure-eight beads were rare, 
as Judd noted. Bone was used only for tubular beads 
and rings. 

Most workshops for turquoise ornaments were 
identified during the Chaco Project. The description 
of material at Be 51 (Vivian 1970), however, may 
indicate other materials were being processed in 
Chaco Canyon, probably in the Late Bonito Phase. 
Because a workshop for argillite was identified at 
Shumway Pueblo in the A.D. 1200s (Swift 1980), a 
change in materials produced may have occurred. 

Turquoise does seem to be the most valued 
material type. Frisbie's comments (personal 
communication, 1984) indicate that turquoise has a 
special religious significance among the Zuni today. 
Judd's observations that the poorer quality turquoise 



and scraps were saved and placed as offerings in 
kivas was upheld by the data from 29SJ 423, where 
the Basketmaker III great kiva and the Pueblo III 
shrine contained turquoise offerings. 

Explanations for the rise and fall of the Chaco 
Phenomena have been a topic of investigation for 
several decades (e.g., Irwin-Williams 1983; Irwin- 
Williams and Shelley 1980; Judge 1979; 1989, 1991; 
Kelley and Kelly 1975; Schelberg 1982; Sebastian 
1988; Vivian 1970); how the system operated is still 
under investigation. Based on the study of ornaments 
and minerals, I believe there is a difference among 
the various Anasazi groups during the Bonito Phase. 
One possible explanation considers Chaco 's location 
in the middle of the San Juan Basin as an oasis in the 
desert. When population had grown sufficiently to 
use all the decent agricultural lands in that area, the 
farming area became circumscribed. As some 
families must have relied on others for food 
resources, incipient social stratification resulted. On 
the perimeters of the basin, however, there was more 
room for expansion and less need at an early date for 
dependence on neighbors to provide basic necessities. 
Hunting and gathering in nearby mountains or 
mobility strategies may have remained options for a 
longer time. Thus, the early rise of large structures 
or greathouses, mainly in Chaco Canyon, and the use 
of turquoise, copper bells and macaws to mark the 
differences among people within the local area, may 
be the result of using dependent groups for 
construction and as specialized traders who could 
assist leaders in procurement of unusual or difficult 
to obtain objects. The possibility of a big man 
trading system, much like that described by the kula 
ring, has been explored elsewhere (Mathien 1992c). 
In the proposed system, turquoise became a special 
symbol for the Chacoan leaders, but not necessarily 
for leaders in all other communities. 

In summary, it is inferred that some of the 
Pueblo traditions ethnographically observed may have 
had their beginning during the Basketmaker III Phase 
and the Bonito Phase, when a stratified society was 
able to obtain turquoise in great numbers from long 
distances and made use of it in ceremonies as well as 
for ornaments. 

References 

Adams, R. 

1951 Half House, a Pit House in Chaco Canyon. 



1208 Chaco Artifacts 



New Mexico . Michigan Academy of 
Science, Arts and Letters No. 35. 

Akins, Nancy J. 

1980 The Abraders of Chaco Canyon: An 
Analysis of their Form and Function. Ms. 
on file, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. See Chapter 5 of this 
Volume. 

1986 A Biocultural Approach to Human Burials 
from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico . Reports 
of the Chaco Center, No. 9. Branch of 
Cultural Research, National Park Service, 
Santa Fe. 

Akins, Nancy J., and William B. Gillespie 

1979 Summary Report of Archaeological In- 
vestigations at Una Vida, Chaco Canyon, 
New Mexico. Ms. on file, National Park 
Service Chaco Archive, University of New 
Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Akins, Nancy J., and John D. Schelberg 

1984 Evidence for Organizational Complexity as 
Seen from the Mortuary Practices at Chaco 
Canyon. In Recent Research on Chaco 
Prehistory , edited by W. James Judge and 
John D. Schelberg, pp. 89-102. Reports of 
the Chaco Center, No. 8. Division of 
Cultural Research, National Park Service, 
Albuquerque. 

Bandelier, Adolph F. 

1892 Final Report of Investigations Among the 
Indians of the Southwestern United States. 
Part II . Papers of the Archaeological 
Institute of America, American Series, IV. 
John Wilson and Sons, Cambridge. 

Baugh, Timothy G. 

1990 The Ambrosia Lake Project. Archaeological 
Investigations of Three Small Sites 
Associated with the Southern Chaco Outlier 
of Kin Nizhoni. McKinley County, New 
Mexico . UMTRA Archaeological Report 
No. 53. Complete Archaeological Service 
Associates, Cortez. 



Bennett, Elizabeth 

1966 Turquoise and the Indian . 
Chicago. 



Swallow Press, 



Bice, Richard A. 

1983 The Sterling Site: An Initial Report. In 
Collected Papers in Honor of Charlie R. 
Steen, Jr. , edited by Nancy L. Fox, pp. 49- 
86. Papers of the Archaeological Society of 
New Mexico: 8. 

Bice, Richard A., and William M. Sundt 

1972 Prieta Vista, a Small Pueblo HI Ruin in 
North-Central New Mexico . Albuquerque 
Archaeological Society. 

Birkedal, Terje Gjert 

1976 Basketmaker III Residence Units: A Study 
of Prehistoric Social Organization in the 
Mesa Verde Archaeological District . Un- 
published Ph.D. dissertation, University 
of Colorado, Boulder. 

Bishop, Ronald L. 

1979 Neutron Activation Analysis of Chacoan 
Turquoise: An Informal Report to the 
Division of Chaco Research, Southwest 
Cultural Resources Center. Ms. on file, 
National Park Service Chaco Archive, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Bradley, Bruce 

1974 Preliminary Report on Excavations at 
Wallace Ruin, 1969-1974. Southwestern 
Lore 40:63-71. 

1984 The Wallace Ruin and the Chaco 
Phenomenon. In Insights into the Ancient 
Ones , edited by Joanne H. and Edward F. 
Berger, pp. 122-127. Interdisciplinary 
Supplemental Educational Programs, Inc. 
Mesa Verde Press, Cortez. 

1988 Wallace Ruin Interim Report. Southwestern 
Lore 54:8-33. 

Brand, Donald D. 

1937 The Natural Landscape. In Tseh So. a 
Small House Ruin, Chaco Canyon, New 
Mexico , by Donald D. Brand, Florence M. 
Hawley, and Frank C. Hibben et al., pp. 
39-65. University of New Mexico 
Publication No. 308, Anthropological Series 
2(2). University of New Mexico Press, 
Albuquerque. 

Brand, Donald D., Florence M. Hawley, and 
Frank C. Hibben et al. 



Ornaments 1209 



1937 Tseh So. a Small House Ruin, Chaco 
Canyon. New Mexico. Preliminary Report . 
University of New Mexico Publication No. 
308, Anthropological Series 2(2). 
University of New Mexico Press, 
Albuquerque. 

Breternitz, Cory Dale, David E. Doyel, and 
Michael P. Marshall 

1982 Bis sa'ani: A Late Bonito Phase Community 
on the Escavada Wash. Northwest New 
Mexico . 3 volumes. Navajo Nation Papers 
in Anthropology, No. 14. Navajo National 
Cultural Research Management Program, 
Window Rock, AZ. 

Brisbin, Joel 

1973 The Ida Jean Site (North McElmo #8). Ms. 
on file, Crow Canyon Archaeological 
Center, Cortez. 

Bullard, William R., Jr. 

1962 The Cerro Colorado Site and Pithouse 
Architecture in the Southwestern United 
States prior to A.D. 900. Papers of the 
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and 
Ethnology , No. 44(2). Harvard University, 
Cambridge. 

Bullard, William R., Jr., and Francis E. Cassidy 

1956 LA 2507. In Pipeline Archaeology, edited 
by Fred Wendorf, Nancy Fox and Orian L. 
Lewis, pp. 56-66. Laboratory of 

Anthropology and Museum of Northern 
Arizona, Santa Fe and Flagstaff. 

Cameron, Catherine M. 

1985 The Chipped Stone of Chaco Canyon, New 
Mexico. Ms. on file, National Park Service 
Chaco Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. Published as Chapter 3 of 
this volume. 

1993 Chipped Stone from 29SJ 629. In The 
Spadefoot Toad Site. Excavations at 29SJ 
629. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico. Volume 
II. Artifactual and Biological Analyses , 
edited by Thomas C. Windes, pp. 135-184. 
Reports of the Chaco Center No. 12. 
Branch of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Santa Fe. 



Cameron, Catherine M., and Robert Lee 
Sappington 

1984 Obsidian Procurement at Chaco Canyon, 
A.D. 500-1200. In Recent Research on 
Chaco Prehistory , edited by W. James Judge 
and John D. Schelberg, pp. 153-171. 
Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 8. 
Division of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Albuquerque. 

Carlson, R. L. 

1966 Twin Angels Pueblo. American Antiquity 
31:676-682. 

Crotty, Helen K. 

1983 Honoring the Dead. Anasazi Ceramics from 
the Rainbow Bridge-Monument Valley 
Expedition . Museum of Cultural History, 
University of California at Los Angeles, 
Monograph Series No. 22. 

Davis, Emma Lou, and John Winkler 

1959 A Late Mesa Verde Site in the Rio Puerco 
Valley. El Palacio 66(3):92-100. 

DiPeso, Charles C. 

1974 Casas Grandes: A Fallen Trading Center of 
the Gran Chichimeca. 8 volumes. The 
Amerind Foundation and Northland Press, 
Dragoon and Flagstaff. 

Dodge, Andrea 

1990 Selenite Signaling in the Greater Southwest. 
Poster presentation, Quantitative Data 
Analysis, Sociology 570 Open House, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 
May 9. 

Dohm, Karne, and Melissa Gould 

1986 Excavations at Kin Tl'iish (Site 5MT2336), 
a Multiple-Occupation Site. In Dolores 
Archaeological Program: Early Small 
Settlements in the Dolores River Canyon and 
Western Sagehen Flats Area, compiled by 
Timothy A. Kohler, William D. Lipe, and 
Allen E. Kane, pp. 561-768. USDI Bureau 
of Reclamation Engineering and Research 
Center, Denver. 

Eddy, Frank 

1968 Prehistory in the Navajo Reservoir District. 



1210 Chaco Artifacts 



Northwestern New Mexico . Parts I and II. 
Museum of New Mexico Papers in 
Anthropology 15, Santa Fe. 
1977 Archaeological Investigatons at Chimney 
Rock Mesa: 1970-1972. Memoirs of the 
Colorado Archaeological Society 1, Boulder. 

Eddy, Frank VV., and Beth L. Dickey 

1961 Excavations at Los Pinos Sites in the Navajo 
Reservoir District . Museum of New 
Mexico, Papers in Anthropology, No. 4, 
Santa Fe. 

Ellis, Florence H. 

1968 An Interpretation of Prehistoric Death 
Customs in Terms of Modern Southwestern 
Parallels. In Collected Papers in Honor of 
Lyndon Lane Hargrave . edited by Albert H. 
Schroeder, pp. 57-76. Papers of the 
Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 1. 
Albuquerque. 

Elyea, Janette, Emily K. Abbink, and Peter N. 
Eschman 

1979 Cultural Resources of the N.I.I.P. Blocks IV 
and V Survey. Report submitted to Richard 
A. Goddard, Navajo National Cultural 
Resources Management Program. Ms. on 
file, National Park Service Chaco Archive, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Feathers, James K. 

1989 Effects of Temper on Strength of Ceramics: 
Response to Bronitsky and Homer. 
American Antiquity 54(3):579-588. 

Fehr, Russell T., Klara B. Kelley, Linda Popelish, 
and Laurie Warner 

1982 Prehistoric and Historic Occupation of the 
Black Creek Valley, Navajo Nation . 
Volumes 1 and 2. Navajo Nation Papers in 
Anthropology, No. 7, Window Rock, AZ. 

Fenenga, Franklin, and Fred Wendorf 

1956 Excavations at the Ignacio, Colorado, Field 
Camp: Site LA 2605. In Pipeline 
Archaeology, edited by Fred Wendorf, 
Nancy Fox and Orian L. Lewis, pp. 207- 
214. Laboratory of Anthropology and 
Museum of Northern Arizona, Santa Fe and 
Flagstaff. 



Ferg, Alan 

1983 LA 25860, The Sheep Chute Site. In 
Excavations at Three Developmental Period 
Sites near Zia and Santa Ana Pueblos, New 
Mexico , by Nancy S. Hammack, Alan Ferg, 
and Bruce Bradley, pp. 7-89. CASA Papers 
No. 2. Complete Archaeological Service 
Associates, Cortez. 

Franklin, Hayward 

1980 Salmon Ruin Ceramics Laboratory Report. 
In Investigations at the Salmon Site: The 
Structure of Chacoan Society in the 
Northern Southwest . Final report to funding 
agencies, edited by Cynthia Irwin- Williams 
and Phillip H. Shelley, Volume VII. 
Eastern New Mexico University Printing 
Services, Portales. Ms. on file, 

Intermountain Cultural Resource Center, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Frisbie, Theodore R. 

1967 The Excavation and Interpretation of the 
Artificial Leg Basket Maker Ill-Pueblo I 
Sites near Corrales. New Mexico . 
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of 
Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

Gaumer, Alfred E. 

1937 Basketmaker Caves in Desolation Canon, 
Green River, Utah. The Masterkev 
11(5): 160-165. 

Gillespie, William B. 

1984 Excavations at Sheep Camp Shelter (29SJ 
178). Chapter 4 in Archaic Prehistory and 
Paleoenvironments in the San Juan Basin, 
New Mexico: The Chaco Shelters Project. 
edited by A. H. Simmons, pp. 39-94. 
University of Kansas, Museum of 
Anthropology, Project Report Series, No. 
53. University of Kansas, Lawrence. 

1993 Vertebrate Remains from 29SJ 629. In The 
Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ 
629, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: 
Artifactual and Biological Analyses . 
Volume II, edited by Thomas C. Windes, 
pp. 343-395. Reports by the Chaco Center 
No. 12. Branch of Cultural Research, 
Division of Anthropology, National Park 
Service, Santa Fe. 



Ornaments 1211 



Gladwin, Harold S. 

1945 The Chaco Branch Excavations at White 
Mound and in the Red Mesa Valley . 
Medallion Papers, No. 33, Gila Pueblo, 
Globe. 

Gross, G. Timothy 

1986 The Grass Mesa Locality Testing Program, 
1979-1980. In Dolores Archaeological 
Program: Early Small Settlements in the 
Dolores River Canyon and Western Sagehen 
Flats Area , compiled by Timothy A. Kohler, 
William D. Lipe, and Allen E. Kane, pp. 
47-153. USDI Bureau of Reclamation 
Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 

Guernsey, Samuel J. 

1931 Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. 
Papers of the Peabody Museum of American 
Archaeology and Ethnology 12(1). 

Guernsey, Samuel J., and Alfred Vincent Kidder 

1921 Basket-Maker Caves of Northeastern 
Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of 
American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(2). 

Hallasi, Judith Ann 

1979 Archeological Excavation at the Escalante 
Site, Dolores, Colorado, 1975 and 1976. 
Part II in The Archeology and Stabilization 
of the Dominguez and Escalante Ruins , by 
A. D. Reed, J. A. Hallasi, A. S. White, and 
D. A. Breternitz, pp. 203-410. Colorado 
State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 
Cultural Resources Series, No. 7. 

Hallisy, Stephen J. 

1972 Site 1990, a Basketmaker III Pithouse on 
Wetherill Mesa. In Wetherill Salvage 
Archaeology . Report submitted to the 
Midwest Archeological Center, National 
Park Service, Lincoln. 

Har bottle, Garman, and Phil C. Weigand 

1992 Turquoise in Pre-Columbian America. 
Scientific American 266(2): 78-85. 

Haury, Emil W. 

1931 Minute Beads from Prehistoric Pueblos. 
American Anthropologist 33:80-87. 



1945 Painted Cave. Northeastern Arizona . The 
Amerind Foundation, No. 3. 

Hayes, Alden C. 

1975 Pithouse Y at Shabik'eshchee (29SJ1659). 
Ms. on file, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

1981 A Survey of Chaco Canyon Archeology. In 
Archeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, by 
Alden C. Hayes, David M. Brugge, and W. 
James Judge, pp. 1-68. Publications in 
Archeology 18 A, Chaco Canyon Studies. 
National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Hayes, Alden C, and James A. Lancaster 

1975 Badger House Community. Mesa Verde 
National Park. Colorado . Publications in 
Archeology 7E, Wetherill Mesa Studies. 
National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Hayes, Alden C, and Thomas C. Windes 

1975 An Anasazi Shrine in Chaco Canyon. In 
Collected Papers in Honor of Florence 
Hawlev Ellis , edited by Theodore R. 
Frisbie, pp. 143-156. Papers of the 
Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 2. 

Hewett, Edgar L. 

1936 The Chaco Canyon and Its Monuments . 
University of New Mexico and School of 
American Research, Albuquerque and Santa 
Fe. 

Hodge, F. W. 

1921 Turquoise Work of Hawikuh. New Mexico . 
Leaflets of the Museum of the American 
Indian, No. 2. Heye Foundation, New 
York. 

Hogan, Patrick 

1986 Excavation at LeMoc Shelter (Site 
5MT2151), a Multiple-Occupational Anasazi 
Site. In Dolores Archaeological Program: 
Early Small Settlements in the Dolores River 
Canyon and Western Sagehen Flats Area. 
compiled by Timothy A. Kohler, William 
D. Lipe, and Allen E. Kane, pp. 157-332. 
USDI Bureau of Reclamation Engineering 
and Research Center, Denver. 



1212 Chaco Artifacts 



Hurst, J. 

1942 Completion of Work in Tabeguache Cave. 
Southwestern Lore 8(1):7-16. 

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia 

1983 Socio-Economic Order and Authority in the 
Chacoan Community at Salmon Ruin . Paper 
presented at the Second Anasazi Symposium, 
February 10-12. San Juan Archaeological 
Research Center and Library at Salmon 
Ruin, Farmington. 

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, and Philip H. Shelley 
(editors) 

1980 Investigations at the Salmon Site: The 
Structure of Chacoan Society in the 
Northern Southwest . Final report to funding 
agencies. Eastern New Mexico University 
Printing Services, Portales. Ms. on file, 
Intermountain Cultural Resource Center, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Jeancon, J. A., and F. H. Roberts 

1923-4 Further Archeological Research in the 
Northeastern San Juan Basin of Colorado 
during the Summer of 1922. The Colorado 
Magazine 1:65-70, 108-118, 163-173, 213- 
224, 260-276, 302-307. 

Jernigan, E. Wesley 

1978 Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest . 
School of American Research and the 
University of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe 
and Albuquerque. 

Judd, Neil M. 

1924 Two Chaco Canyon Pit Houses. 

Smithsonian Institution. Annual Report for 

1922 . pp. 399-413. 
1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito . 

Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 124, 

Washington, D.C. 

Judge, W. James 

1979 The Development of a Complex Cultural 
Ecosystem in the Chaco Basin, New 
Mexico. In Proceedings of the First 
Conference on Scientific Research in the 
National Parks , edited by Robert M. Linn, 
Vol. n, pp. 901-906. National Park Service 
Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 5. 
Washington, D.C. 



1989 Chaco Canyon — San Juan Basin. In 
Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory , edited by 
Linda S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, 
pp. 209-261. Smithsonion Institution Press, 
Washington, D. C. 

1991 Chaco: Current Views of Prehistory and the 
Regional System. In Chaco and Hohokam: 
Prehistoric Regional Systems in the 
American Southwest , edited by Patricia L. 
Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 11-30. 
School of American Research, Santa Fe. 

Keen, A. Myra 

1971 Sea Shells of Tropical West America . 
Second edition. Stanford University Press, 
Stanford. 

Kelley, J. Charles, and Ellen Abbott Kelley 

1975 An Alternative Hypothesis for the 
Explanation of Anasazi Culture History. In 
Collected Papers in Honor of Florence 
Hawlev Ellis , edited by Theodore R. 
Frisbie, pp. 178-223. Papers of the 
Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 2. 

Kemrer, Meade, Alan Reed, Penelope Whitten, 
and Marilyn Swift 

1980 Excavations at Shumway Pueblo, an Early 
Pueblo HI Village in Northwestern New 
Mexico . Contributions to Anthropology, 
Series No. 193. Division of Contract 
Archaeology, San Juan County 
Archaeological Research Center and 
Library, Farmington. 

Kidder, Alfred Vincent 

1962 An Introduction to the Study of South- 
western Archaeology . Yale University 
Press, New Haven. (Original published in 
1924.) 

Kidder, Alfred Vincent, and Samuel J. Guernsey 

1919 Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern 
Arizona . Bureau of American Ethnology, 
Bulletin 65. Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D.C. 

Kirkpatrick, David T. (ed.) 

1980 Prehistory and History of the Ojo Amarillo. 
Archaeological Investigations of Block II. 
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. San Juan 
County. New Mexico . Cultural Resources 



Ornaments 1213 



Management Division, Report 276. 
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, 
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. 

Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Paul Reiter 

1939 Preliminary Report of 1937 Excavations. Be 
50-51, Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . Uni- 
versity of New Mexico, Bulletin 345, 
Anthropological Series 3(2), Albuquerque. 

Lancaster, James A., and Jean M. Pinkley 

1954 Excavation at Site 16 of Three Pueblo II 
Mesa-Top Ruins. In Archeological Exca- 
vations in Mesa Verde National Park. 
Colorado. 1950 , by J. A. Lancaster, J. M. 
Pinkley, P. VanCleave, and D. Watson, pp. 
23-86. Archeological Research Series, No. 
2. National Park Service, Washington, 
D.C. 

Lancaster, James A., and Don Watson 

1954 Excavation of Two Late Basketmaker III 
Pithouses. In Archeological Excavations in 
Mesa Verde National Park. Colorado. 1950 . 
by J. A. Lancaster, J. M. Pinkley, P. 
VanCleave, and D. Watson, pp. 7-22. 
Archeological Research Series, No. 2. 
National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Lekson, Stephen H. 

1984 Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico . Publications in Archeology 
18B, Chaco Canyon Series. National Park 
Service, Albuquerque. 

Levine, Daisy F., and Linda J. Goodman 

1990 An Archaeological and Ethnohistorical 
Survey within the Cerrillos Mining District. 
Santa Fe County. New Mexico. Volume 1 . 
Museum of New Mexico Research Section, 
Laboratory of Anthropology Notes 508. 
Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe. 

Levine, Daisy F., Linda J. Goodman, and Timothy 
D. Maxwell 

1991 An Archaeological and Ethnohistorical 
Survey within the Cerrillos Mining District. 
Santa Fe County. New Mexico. Volume 2 . 
Museum of New Mexico Research Section, 
Laboratory of Anthropology Notes 508. 
Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe. 



Lockett, H. C, and L. L. Hargrave 

1953 Woodchuck Cave . Museum of Northern 
Arizona Bulletin 26. Flagstaff. 

Loose, Richard W. 

1979 Excavations at 29SJ 299, Chaco Canyon, 
New Mexico. Ms. on file, National Park 
Service Chaco Archive, University of New 
Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Marshall, Michael, John Stein, Richard W. Loose, 
and Judith Novotny 

1979 Anasazi Communities of the San Juan Basin . 
Albuquerque Photo Lab, Albuquerque. 

Martin, Paul S. 

1936 Lowry Ruin in Southwestern Colorado . 
Field Museum of Natural History, 
Anthropology Series 23(1). Chicago. 

Mathews, Thomas W., and Earl Neller 

1979 Atlatl Cave: Archaic-Basketmaker II In- 
vestigations in Chaco Canyon National 
Monument. In Proceedings of the First 
Conference on Scientific Research in the 
National Parks. Volume II . edited by Robert 
M. Linn, pp. 873. National Park Service 
Transactions and Proceedings Series, No. 5. 

Mathien, Frances Joan 

1981 Neutron Activation of Turquoise Artifacts 
from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Current 
Anthropology 22:293-294. 

1984a Social and Economic Implications of Jewelry 
Items of the Chaco Anasazi. In Recent 
Research on Chaco Prehistory , edited by W. 
James Judge and John D. Schelberg, p. 173- 
186. Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 8. 
Division of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Albuquerque. 

1984b Travertine versus Shell. A Problem in 
Identification of Materials Found in 
Archaeological Sites. In Collected Papers in 
Honor of Harry L. Hadlock , edited by 
Nancy L. Fox, pp. 93-112. Papers of the 
Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 9. 

1985 Ornaments and Minerals of Chaco Canyon, 
National Park Service Project, 1971-1978, 3 
volumes. Ms. on file, National Park 
Service Chaco Archive, University of New 
Mexico, Albuquerque. 



1214 Chaco Artifacts 



1987 Ornaments and Minerals from Pueblo Alto. 
In Investigations at the Pueblo Alto 
Complex, Chaco Canyon. New Mexico. 
1975-1979. Volume III. Artifactual and 
Biological Analyses , edited by Frances Joan 
Mathien and Thomas C. Windes, pp. 381- 
428. Publications in Archeology 18F, 
Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park 
Service, Santa Fe. 

1988 Analysis of Ornaments, Minerals and 
Cached Items. In Historic Structure Report. 
Kin Nahasbas Ruin. Chaco Culture National 
Historical Park. New Mexico, by Frances 
Joan Mathien and Thomas C. Windes, pp. 
249-273. Branch of Cultural Research, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

1990a The Analysis of Ornaments and Minerals 
from 29SJ 626, Chaco Canyon, New 
Mexico. Ms. on file, National Park Service 
Chaco Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

1990b Ornaments Report, Site 29SJ 597 (Be 213). 
Ms. on file, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

1991 Ornaments and Minerals from 29SJ 633. In 
Excavations at 29SJ 633: The Eleventh 
Hour Site. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico. 
edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 221- 
241. Reports of the Chaco Center No. 10. 
Branch of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Santa Fe. 

1992a Chaco Anasazi Beads: Material, Manu- 
facture, Consumption, and Social 
Implications. Paper presented at The Bead 
Trade in the Americas . Santa Fe, March 22. 

1992b Ornaments and Minerals from Site 29SJ 
627. In Excavations at 29SJ 627. Chaco 
Canyon. New Mexico. Volume II. The 
Artifact Analyses, edited by Frances Joan 
Mathien, pp. 265-318. Reports of the 
Chaco Center No. 11. Branch of Cultural 
Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

1992c Exchange Systems and Social Stratification 
among the Chaco Anasazi. In the American 
Southwest and Mesoamerica: Systems of 
Prehistoric Exchange , edited by Jonathon E. 
Ericson and Timothy G. Baugh, pp. 27-62. 
Plenum Press, New York and London. 

1993 Ornaments and Minerals from 29SJ 629. In 
The Spadefoot Toad Site. Excavations at 
29SJ 629 in Marcia's Rincon and the Faiada 



Gap Pueblo II Community. Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico. Volume II. The Artifactual 
and Biological Analyses, edited by Thomas 
C. Windes. Reports of the Chaco Center 
No. 12. Branch of Cultural Research, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 
1994 Argillite: A Locally Available Jewelry 
Material of the Prehistoric Inhabitants of 
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Artifacts. 
Shrines, and Pueblos: Papers in Honor of 
Gordon Page, edited by Meliha S. Duran 
and David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 147-158. 
Papers of the Archaeological Society of New 
Mexico: 20. 

Mathien, Frances Joan, and Bart dinger 
1992 An Experiment with X-Ray Fluorescence to 
Determine Trace Element Variability in 
Turquoise Composition. In Archaeology. 
Art, and Anthropology. Papers in Honor of 
J. J. Brody . edited by Mehila S. Duran and 
David T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 123-134. Papers 
of the Archaeological Society of New 
Mexico: 18. 

Mathien, Frances Joan, and Thomas C. Windes 

1988 Historic Structure Report. Kin Nahasbas 
Ruin. Chaco Culture National Historical 
Park. New Mexico . Branch of Cultural 
Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

McKenna, Peter J. 

1984 The Architecture and Material Culture of 
29SJ 1360. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . 
Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 7. 
Division of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Albuquerque. 

1986 A Summary of the Chaco Center's Small 
Site Excavations: 1973-1978. In Small Site 
Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New 
Mexico, by Peter J. McKenna and Marcia 
L. Truell, pp. 5-114. Publications in 
Archeology 18D, Chaco Canyon Studies. 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

1991 Chaco Canyon's Mesa Verde Phase. In 
Excavations at 29SJ 633: The Eleventh Hour 
Site, Chaco Canyon. New Mexico , edited by 
Frances Joan Mathien, pp 127-137. Reports 
of the Chaco Center No. 10. Branch of 
Cultural Research, National Park Service, 
Santa Fe. 



Ornaments 1215 



McNeil, Jimmy D. 

1986 Ornaments 



of Salmon Ruin, San Juan 



County, New Mexico . Unpublished M.A. 
thesis, Department of Anthropology, Eastern 
New Mexico University, Portales. 

Morris, Ann Axtell 

1933 Digging in the Southwest . Doubleday, 
Doran and Company, New York. 

Morris, Earl H. 

1925 Exploring in the Canyon of Death. National 

Geographic 48:263-300. 
1928 The Aztec Ruin 1919. American Museum 

of Natural History. Anthropological Papers 

26:1-108. 
1939 Archaeological Sites in the LaPlata District. 

Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern 

New Mexico . Carnegie Institution of 

Washington, Publication 519. Washington, 

D.C. 



Site. Dolores. Colorado. 1975 and 1976 . 
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of 
Anthropology, University of Colorado, 
Boulder. 

Nordby, Larry V., and David A. Breternitz 

1972 Site MV-1824-71, a Basketmaker III 
Pithouse and Cist on Wetherill Mesa. 
Report submitted to the Midwest 
Archaeological Center, National Park 
Service, Lincoln. 

Northrop, Stuart A. 

1959 Minerals of New Mexico , revised edition. 
University of New Mexico Press, 
Albuquerque. 

Nusbaum, Jesse L. 

1922 A Basket Maker Cave in Kane County. 
Utah . Museum of the American Indian, 
Indian Notes, New York. 



Morris, Earl H., and R. F. Burgh 

1954 Basket Maker II Sites near Durango. 
Colorado . Carnegie Institution of Wash- 
ington, Publication 604. Washington, D.C. 

Morris, Elizabeth Ann 

1980 Basketmaker Caves in the Prayer Rock 
District. Northeastern Arizona . University 
of Arizona, Anthropological Papers, No. 35. 
University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Neller, Earl 

1978 Casamero Ruin, AS-NM-01-144, LA #8779, 
Archeological Report. Ms. on file, 
Intermountain Cultural Resource Center, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Nelson, G. Charles 

1986 Excavations at Pozo Hamlet (Site 
5MT4613), a Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I 
Habitation. In Dolores Archaeological 
Program: Early Small Settlements in the 
Dolores River Canyon and Western Sagehen 
Flats Area , compiled by Timothy A. Kohler, 
William D. Lipe, and Allen E. Kane, pp. 
771-838. USDI Bureau of Reclamation 
Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 

Nemetz, J. A. 

1977 Archaeological Excavations at the Escalante 



O'Bryan, Deric 

1950 Excavations in Mesa Verde National Park . 
Medallion Papers, No. 39, Gila Pueblo, 
Globe. 

Olson, Alan P., and William W. Wasley 

1956 LA 2506. In Pipeline Archaeology, edited 
by Fred Wendorf, Nancy Fox, and Orian L. 
Lewis, pp. 51-56. Laboratory of Anthro- 
pology and Museum of Northern Arizona, 
Santa Fe and Flagstaff. 

Pendergast, David M. 

1962 Metal Artifacts in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. 
American Antiquity 27(4): 520-545. 

Pepper, George H. 



1909 



1920 



The Exploration of a Burial Room in Pueblo 

Bonito, New Mexico. In Anthropological 

Essays: Putnam Anniversary Volume , pp. 

196-252. G. E. Steckert and Co., New 

York. 

Pueblo Bonito. 



Natural History, 

No. 27. 



American Museum of 
Anthropological Papers, 



Phagan, Carl J. 

1988 Lithic Assemblage Variability. In Dolores 
Archaeological Program: Anasazi Com- 
munities at Dolores: Grass Mesa Village. 



1216 Chaco Artifacts 



compiled by William D. Lipe, James N. 
Morris, and Timothy A. Kohler, pp. 1025- 
1048. USDI Bureau of Reclamation 
Engineering and Research Center, Denver. 

Phagan, Carl J. and Thomas H. Hruby 

1988 Reductive Technologies at McPhee Village. 
In Dolores Archaeological Program: 
Anasazi Communities at Dolores: McPhee 
Village , edited by Allen E. Kane and C. K. 
Robinson, pp. 1345-1390. USDI Bureau of 
Reclamation Engineering and Research 
Center, Denver. 

Pippin, Lonnie C. 

1987 Prehistory and Paleoecology of Guadalupe 
Ruin, New Mexico . Anthropological Papers 
No. 1 12. University of Utah, Salt Lake 
City. 

Powers, Robert P. 

1974 Lowry Ruin and Chimney Rock Pueblo: An 
Examination of Two Possible Chaco Towns 
in the Northern San Juan River Basin of 
Colorado. Ms. on file, Intermountain 
Cultural Resource Center, National Park 
Service, Santa Fe. 

Powers, Robert P., William B. Gillespie, and 
Stephen Lekson 

1983 The Outlier Survey. A Regional View of 
Settlement in the San Juan Basin . Reports 
of the Chaco Center, No. 3. Division of 
Cultural Research, National Park Service, 
Albuquerque. 

Reed, Alan D. 

1979 The Dominguez Ruin: A McElmo Phase 
Pueblo in Southwestern Colorado. In The 
Archeology and Stabilization of the 
Dominguez and Escalante Ruins , by Alan D. 
Reed, Judith A. Hallasi, Adrian S. White, 
and David A. Breternitz, pp. 1-196. 
Colorado Cultural Resources Series, No. 7, 
Bureau of Land Management. 

Reed, Alan D., Paul R. Nickens, and Signa L. 
Larralde 

1981 Archaeological Investigations at the Lost 
Canyon Substation Site, Montezuma County, 
Colorado. Ms. prepared for Colorado-Ute 
Electric Assn. Inc., on file at the 



Intermountain Cultural Resource Center, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Reiter, Winifred 

1933 Personal Adornment of the Ancient Pueblo 
ndians . Unpublished M.A. thesis, Depart- 
ment of Anthropology, University of New 
Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Richert, Roland 

1964 The Excavation of Portions of the East 
Ruin. Aztec Ruins National Monument . 
Southwest Monuments Association, Tech- 
nical Series, No. 4. Globe. 

Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr. 

1922 Report of the Work of the 1922 Season in 
the Piedra Parada Archaeological Field. 
University of Denver Bulletin 23(9). 

1928 A Late Basketmaker Village of the South- 
west. Explorations and Fieldwork of the 
Smithsonian Institution in 1927 . pp. 165- 
172. 

1929 Shabik'eschee Village, a Late Basketmaker 
Site. Bureau of American Ethnology. 
Bulletin 92. Washington, D.C. 

1930 Early Pueblo Ruins in the Piedra District, 
Southwestern Colorado. Bureau of Amer- 
ican Ethnology. Bulletin 96. Washington, 
D.C. 

1932 Village of the Great Kivas on the Zuni 
Reservation, New Mexico. Bureau of 
American Ethnology, Bulletin 111. Wash- 
ington, D.C. 

1938 Chaco Canyon Masonry. American 
Antiquity 4:60-61. 

1939 Archaeological Remains in the Whitewater 
District, Eastern Arizona. I. House Types. 
Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 
121. Washington, D.C. 

Scheick, Cherie 

1983 Conclusions. In The Gamerco Project: 
Flexibility as an Adaptive Strategy , compiled 
by Cherie Scheick, pp. 606-645. Arche- 
ological Division, Project Report No. 071, 
School of American Research, Santa Fe. 

Scheick, Cherie (compiler), and Laura Ware 
(editor) 

1983b The Gamerco Project: Flexibility as an 
Adaptive Strategy . Archeological Division, 



Ornaments 1217 



Project Report 071, School of American 
Research, Santa Fe. 

Schelberg, John D. 

1982 Economic and Social Development as an 
Adaption to a Marginal Environment in 
Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . Unpublished 
Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 
Evanston. 

Schmader, Matthew 

1994 Early Puebloan Site Structure and Techno- 
logical Organization in the Middle Rio 
Grande Valley, New Mexico . Unpublished 
Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthro- 
pology, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

Schorsch, Russell L. 

1962 A Basket Maker III Pit House near 
Albuquerque. El Palacio 69(2): 114-1 18. 

Sebastian, Lynne (with a contribution by Donald 
Howes) 

1986 Excavations at Prince Hamlet (Site 
5MT2161), a Pueblo I Habitation Site. In 
Dolores Archaeological Program: Early 
Small Settlements in the Dolores River 
Canyon and Western Sagehen Flats Area , 
compiled by Timothy A. Kohler, William 
D. Lipe, and Allen E. Kane, pp. 333-496. 
USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering 
and Research Center, Denver. 

1988 Leadership. Power, and Productive 
Potential: A Political Model of the Chaco 
System . Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 
Department of Anthropology, University of 
New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Sessions, Steven £. (editor) 

1979 The Archaeology of Southwest Gallegos 
Mesa: The EPCC Survey Project . Navajo 
Nation Papers in Anthropology, No. 1. 
Window Rock. 

Shelley, Phillip H. 

1980 Salmon Ruins Lithic Laboratory Report. In 
Investigations at the Salmon Site: The 
Structure of Chacoan Society in the 
Northern Southwest . Final report to funding 
agencies, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams 
and Phillip H. Shelley, Volume III, pp. 1- 



161. Eastern New Mexico University 
Printing Services, Portales. Ms. on file, 
Intermountain Cultural Resource Center, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Sigleo, Anne M. C. 

1970 Trace-Element Geochemistry of South- 
western Turquoise . Unpublished M.A. 
thesis, Geology Department, University of 
New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

1981 Casamero, a Chacoan Site in the Red Mesa 
Valley, New Mexico. Ms. on file, National 
Park Service Chaco Archive, University of 
New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Simmons, Alan H. 

1982 Prehistoric Adaptive Strategies in the Chaco 
Canyon Region, Northwestern New Mexico . 
Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology, No. 
9. Window Rock. 

Skinner, S. Alan 

1965 The Sedillo Site: A Pit House Village in 
Albuquerque. El Palacio 72(1):5-14. 

Steward, Julian H. 

1936 Pueblo Material Culture in Western Utah . 
The University of New Mexico Bulletin 287, 
Anthropological Series 1(3). Albuquerque. 

Swift, Marilyn 

1980 Stone Tool and Bead Manufacture. Chapter 
VI in Excavations at Shumway Pueblo, An 
Early Pueblo III Village in Northwestern 
New Mexico, by Meade Kemrer, Alan 
Reed, Penelope Whitten, and Marilyn Swift, 
pp. 89-99. Contributions to Anthropology 
Series, No. 193. Division of Contract 
Archaeology, San Juan County Archa- 
eological Research Center and Library, 
Farmington. 

Switzer, Ronald R. 

1970 A Late Red Mesa-Early Wingate Phase 
Necklace. The Artifact 8(1): 17-32. 

Toll, H. Wolcott, Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J. 
McKenna 

1980 Late Ceramic Patterns in Chaco Canyon: 
The Pragmatics of Modeling Ceramic 
Exchange. In Society for American 
Archaeology Papers 1:95-117. 



1218 Chaco Artifacts 



Truell, Marcia L. 

1975 1972 Archaeological Excavations at the 
Ravine Site, Chimney Rock. Colorado . 
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of 
Anthropology, University of Colorado, 
Boulder. 

1976 Site 628 Summary. Ms. on file, National 
Park Service Chaco Archive, University of 
New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

1986 A Summary of Small Site Architecture in 
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Part II in 
Small Site Architecture of Chaco Canyon, 
New Mexico , by Peter J. McKenna and 
Marcia L. Truell, pp. 115-508. Publications 
in Archeology 18D, Chaco Canyon Series. 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

1992 Excavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico. Volume I. The Architecture 
and Stratigraphy . Reports of the Chaco 
Center No. 11. Branch of Cultural 
Research, National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Vivian, Gordon 

1959 The Hubbard Site and other Tri-Walled 
Structures in New Mexico and Colorado . 
National Park Service Archeological Re- 
search Series, No. 5. Southwest Parks and 
Monuments, Globe, AZ. 

1965 The Three-C Site, an Early Pueblo II Ruin 
in Chaco Canyon . University of New 
Mexico Publications in Anthropology 13. 
University of New Mexico Press, 
Albuquerque. 

Vivian, R. Gordon, and Tom W. Mathews 

1965 Kin Kletso: A Pueblo III Community in 
Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . Southwest 
Parks and Monuments Association, Tech- 
nical Series 6 (1). 

Vivian, R. Gwinn 

1970 Aspects of Prehistoric Society in Chaco 
Canyon. New Mexico . Unpublished Ph.D. 
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 
University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Vivian, R. Gwinn, and Nancy Wilkinson 
Clendenon 

1965 The Denison Site: Four Pithouses near 
Isleta, New Mexico. El Palacio 72(2):5-26. 

Vytlacil, Natalie, and J. J. Brody 



1958 Two Pithouses near Zia Pueblo. El Palacio 
65(5): 174-184. 

Warren, A. Helene 

1967 Description of Lithic Materials. In An 
Archaeological Survey of the Chuska Valley 
and the Chaco Plateau, New Mexico. Part 
I. Natural Sciences Studies , by A. H. 
Harris, J. Schoenwetter, and A. H. Warren, 
pp. 115-134. Museum of New Mexico 
Research Records No. 4, Santa Fe. 

1979 Lithics Identification and Quarry Source 
Workshop. New Mexico State University, 
Cultural Resources Management Division 
Workshop. Ms. on file, National Park 
Service Chaco Archive, University of New 
Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Warren, A. Helene, and Frances Joan Mathien 

1985 Prehistoric and Historic Turquoise Mining in 
the Cerrillos District: Time and Place. In 
Southwestern Culture History. Papers in 
Honor of Albert H. Schroeder, edited by 
Charles H. Lange, pp. 93-128. Papers of 
the Archaeological Society of New Mexico: 
10. 

Weigand, Phil C. 

1994 Observations on Ancient Mining within the 
Northern Regions of the Mesoamerican 
Civilization, with Emphasis on Turquoise. 
In In Quest of Mineral Wealth: Aboriginal 
and Colonial Mining and Metallurgy in 
Spanish America, edited by Alan K. Craig 
and Robert C, West, pp. 21-35. Geoscience 
and Man. Vol. 33. Department of 
Geography and Anthropology, Louisana 
State University, Baton Rouge. 

Weigand, Phil C, and Garman Harbottle 

1992 The Role of Turquoises in the Ancient 
Mesoamerican Trade Structure. In The 
American Southwest and Mesoamerica: 
Systems of Prehistoric Exchange, edited by 
Jonathon E. Ericson and Timothy G. Baugh, 
pp. 159-177. Plenum Press, New York. 

Weigand, Phil C, Garman Harbottle, and 
Edward V. Sayre 

1977 Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: 
Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. 
In Exchange Systems in Prehistory , edited 



Ornaments 1219 



by Timothy K. Earle and Jonathon E. 
Ericson, pp. 15-34. Academic Press, New 
York. 

Wendorf, Fred 

1953 Archaeological Studies in the Petrified 
Forest National Monument . Museum of 
Northern Arizona, Bulletin 27. Flagstaff. 

Whalley, Lucy, and Janice Yingst 

1978 San Juan Valley Archaeological Project 
Survey and Testing Program: General 
Description. Ms. on file, San Juan Valley 
Archaeological Project Ceramics Lab- 
oratory, Eastern New Mexico University, 
Portales. 

Whitten, Penelope 

1982 Excavations at the Crawford Site. A 
Basketmaker IH-Pueblo I Site near 
Crownpoint. New Mexico . Contributions to 
Anthropology Series, No. 307. Division of 
Conservation Archaeology, San Juan County 
Archaeological Research Center and 
Library, Farmington. 

Windes, Thomas C. 

1975a Excavation at 29SJ423, an Early 
Basketmaker III Site in Chaco Canyon. 
Preliminary Report of the Architecture and 
Stratigraphy. Ms. on file, National Park 
Service Chaco Archive, University of New 
Mexico, Albuquerque. 

1975b Excavation of 29SJ721, an Early Pueblo I 
Site in Chaco Canyon. Preliminary Report 
of the Architecture and Stratigraphy. Ms. 
on file, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

1976a Excavation of 29SJ299 (P-I Component). 
Preliminary Report of the Architecture and 
Stratigraphy. Ms. on file, National Park 
Service Chaco Archive, University of New 
Mexico, Albuquerque. 

1976b Excavation of 29SJ724. Preliminary Report 
of the Architecture and Stratigraphy. Ms. 



on file, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

1982 The Prehistoric Road Network at Pueblo 
Alto. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . Paper 
presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the 
American Anthropological Association, 
Washington, D.C. 

1987 Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex. 
Chaco Canyon. New Mexico. 1975-1979 . 
Publications in Archeology 18F, Chaco 
Canyon Studies. National Park Service, 
Santa Fe. 

1993 The Spadefoot Toad Site. Excavations at 
29SJ 629 in Marcia's Rincon and the Fajada 
Gap Pueblo II Community. Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico . Reports of the Chaco Center 
No. 12. Branch of Cultural Research, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Wiseman, Regge N., and J. Andrew Darling 

1986 The Bronze Trail Site Group: More Evi- 
dence for a Cerrillos-Chaco Turquoise Con- 
nection. In By Hands Unknown: Papers on 
Rock Art and Archaeology in Honor of 
James G. Bain , edited by Anne Poore, pp. 
115-143. Papers of the Archaeological 
Society of New Mexico: 12. Albuquerque. 

Woodbury, Richard B. 

1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of Northern 
Arizona. Reports of the Awatovi Ex- 
pedition, No. 6. Papers of the Peabody 
Museum of American Archaeology and 
Ethnology . No. 34. Harvard University, 
Cambridge. 

Woods, Janet 

1934 Excavation of the Court Kiva, Chetro Ketl. 
Archive 1941, National Park Service Chaco 
Archive, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

n.d. The Benches of the Great Bowl. Ms. on 
file, National Park Service Chaco Archive, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 



1220 Chaco Artifacts 



Chapter Eleven 



Inferences from the Data 



Frances Joan Mathien 



The goal of this chapter is to bring together 
some of the information generated by the analyses of 
artifacts recovered during the Chaco Project and to 
use these data to gain a better understanding of the 
prehistoric Chacoan people through time. A number 
of questions were raised about Chaco Canyon as a 
culture center and the level of social complexity of 
the Chaco Phenomenon. Despite problems with how 
the samples were derived, questions about termin- 
ology, multiple uses of artifact types, incomplete 
understanding of site formation processes and later 
site disturbances, and lack of primary contexts in 
which some artifacts were found, a number of ideas 
can be explored. All these issues raise questions for 
additional investigations. 



Review 

Because some artifact types, such as ceramics, 
chipped stone tools, and ornaments have received 
much attention in the past, typologies, which had 
been established previously, are now refined 
intermittently. Those who worked with these artifact 
types tended to address questions about the 
complexity of the society as evidenced by trade, craft 
specialization, and differences in consumption 
patterns between greathouse and small-house sites. 
The analysts who examined the ground stone artifacts 
were more concerned with basic typological 
problems, e.g., Wills' efforts to determine if there 
were several classes of hammerstones and how they 
differed. All analysts addressed procurement sources 
and changes in material types through time, but often 
the numbers of artifacts were few, making discussion 
of source determination and imports more difficult. 
This review will draw on information from the 
appropriate chapters and other studies. The topics 



selected include imports, material types and 
functions, tool kits, craft specialization, and 
differences in distribution and consumption between 
greathouse and small-house sites. 

Imports 

That the inhabitants of Chaco Canyon always 
had access to imported goods was demonstrated for 
all classes of artifacts evaluated in this volume. 
Definitions of boundaries for local, regional, and 
long-distance imports, however, were not the same. 
There was general agreement that the San Juan Basin 
was the regional boundary, but the distances 
considered to be within local availability differ 
somewhat (5 km, 10 km radii from the canyon). 
Interaction with other areas outside the region, such 
as the Kayenta, Little Colorado, and Mogollon were 
documented. Also noted were the many fluctuations 
in the source areas and relative percentages of goods 
through time. 

Toll's evaluation of the ceramic data indicates 
that a large number of ceramics were brought into 
Chaco Canyon from several directions, beginning in 
Basketmaker III and continuing through Pueblo III 
(Tables 2.58 and 2.61); imports reached 50 percent 
overall for the sites combined during one period 
(A.D. 1100 to 1200). The highest percentages of 
redwares, graywares, and whitewares, however, do 
not come from the same source areas at the same 
time. For example, between A.D. 920 and 1100, 
approximately 80 percent of the redwares are from 
the San Juan area, while trachyte-tempered ceramics 
from the Chuska Mountains appear more frequently 
as graywares from A.D. 1040 to 1100 and 
whitewares appear between A.D. 1100 and 1200. 
After A.D. 1 100, there is an increase in the San Juan 



1222 Chaco Artifacts 



tempers in the graywares and whitewares. Such 
shifts are not unique to Chaco Canyon; Blinman and 
Wilson (1992) demonstrate a complex pattern in 
several localities (Kayenta, Chuska, Chaco, Northern 
San Juan and Upper San Juan subdivisions) of the 
northern Anasazi area. 

Toll does see an increase in the number of 
imports in Chaco Canyon through time, leading up to 
the peak between A.D. 1100 and 1200, with a slight 
decrease thereafter. There is a tendency for a greater 
proportion of the exotics to come from the south 
prior to A.D. 1040, from the Chuska area during the 
Classic Bonito Phase, and from the San Juan area 
later on. Even though the Chuskan ceramics 
dominate the assemblages during the Classic Bonito 
Period, half of the imports are not from this area. 
As Toll concludes, this is a dynamic, complex 
system. 

Chipped stone tends to be local, but imported 
materials were used during all periods. Imports were 
generally less than 10 percent of the specimens 
recovered prior to A.D. 1020, but around 30 percent 
between A.D. 1020 and 1220. Most of the exotic 
materials were finished tools. After A.D. 900, the 
imported materials indicate that exotics came 
primarily from the west or northwest as finished tools 
from A.D. 1020 to 1120; from A.D. 1120 to 1220, 
however, bulk materials were more common and 
came from the east (Jemez Mountains). 
Proportionately, these exotics are found in higher 
percentages in the greathouses after A.D. 1020. 

Generally, ground stone tools were fashioned 
from locally available materials. Several of the 
analysts questioned whether shifts in numbers of 
imported materials were due to depletion of sources, 
function, or areas where particular activities were 
carried out. Based on a review of the data, sources 
of materials were not limited by their abundance; 
shifts in use of imported goods were related to 
changes in tasks, materials used, or the organization 
of work groups. 

Akins' examination of abraders (Table 5.153) 
indicates that sandstone was the preferred material 
(1,868 or 84.3 percent), with quartzite (291 or 13.14 
percent) being the second choice. The remaining 
nine material types made up about 2.3 percent. Yet 
when one examines the functions of tools, the 
quartzite and other cobble materials are usually used 



as polishers (282 of 340 or 82.9 percent of all 
polishers were quartzite); only 12 (3.5 percent) were 
sandstone. For active, passive, and grooved 
abraders, as well as anvils, the choice of materials 
was reversed (Table 11.1). 

Wills noted that approximately 75 percent of the 
hammerstones were made from local petrified wood; 
only 25 percent were imports and the materials varied 
considerably, with quartzite being the most frequent 
import. Chert percentages increased until Pueblo I, 
when it tapered off, as did dark wood. The largest 
diversity in cherts occurred in the A.D. 1000s. 

The sample for axes and mauls is more limited 
than Breternitz would have liked, but by combining 
information on sites excavated by the Chaco Project 
with that from other excavated Chaco sites, he 
suggests that there was an increase in the number of 
imported cobbles through time. Thus, source 
availability would not be an explanation for the 
change in numbers of cobbles noted by Akins and 
Wills (as Wills anticipated). Windes (1987:295) 
reviewed a different database for axes during his 
analysis of Pueblo Alto and indicates that axes were 
rare until after A.D. 1100; he postulates that they 
may have been brought into Chaco Canyon by people 
from the San Juan region and used in the remodeling 
of existing sites or in the construction of new small 
sites. 

Cameron reports that manos were generally 
made of local materials (all but 5 of 1,244 analyzed 
were sandstone; 0.2 percent were quartzite). Local 
sandstone was also the material of choice for metates 
analyzed by Schelberg. 

With regard to jewelry, the presence of 
freshwater shell and malachite during Basketmaker II 
indicate the early availability of resources from the 
San Juan Basin. Other imported materials, par- 
ticularly turquoise and marine shells from the Gulf of 
California, were available by Basketmaker III; marine 
shells from the Pacific Coast appeared shortly 
thereafter (Basketmaker Hi-Pueblo I transition). The 
turquoise and shell numbers increase dramatically 
after A.D. 900 and new species of shell appear, 
especially in the late A.D. 900s to early 1000s. 
Copper bells and macaws indicate establishment of 
trade networks that encompassed northern Mexico 
and were in place during the mid A.D. 1000s 
(Mathien 1992b). 



Table 11.1. Materials used for abraders and anvils at Chaco sites. 



' Totals for passive abraders did not agree with tables and percentages. 



Inferences 1223 





Total 


Sandstone 






Quartzite 




Other 




Type 


No. 


% 


No. 




% 


No. 


% 


All active 


1,014 


1,007 


99.3 


3 




0.3 


4 


0.4 


All passive* 


533 


229 


43.0 


- 




- 


11 


2.1 


Grooved 


47 


46 


97.8 


2 




2.1 


- 


- 


Anvils 


281 


275 


97.8 


6 




2.1 


- 


- 



In summary, understanding the role of 
importation and exchange networks that brought 
many and diverse goods into Chaco Canyon is not a 
simple task. The people made choices about what 
materials were best for specific goals and tasks, and 
they used the local sandstone for many purposes. 
Jewelry items of various materials indicate 
differential use, with disposition of those made from 
imported turquoise and shell being somewhat 
restricted (Akins 1986; Mathien 1992a). 

Material Types and Functions 

As Akins indicates, material type has much to 
do with shape and function of the various types of 
abraders. Although many of the tools were 
multifunctional, she associated cobbles with the 
earlier sites (Basketmaker III through Early Pueblo 
II). During Pueblo II, active abraders possibly 
replaced polishers, or perhaps with the use of 
masonry rather than mud wall structures, cobbles 
were in less demand because 1) different tools would 
be needed, 2) imports would be hard to get, or 3) the 
quarrying activities for all stones made it easier to 
obtain a hard local material. Comparisons of data 
from Pueblo Alto and several small sites (Akins 
1987) again indicated that there were fewer polishers 
in late sites versus an increased number of abraders. 
Pueblo Alto and 29SJ 629 had fewer abraders and 
polishers than expected; yet lapidary abraders were 
numerous at Pueblo Alto. These are usually 
associated with jewelry-making, but active lapidary 
abraders were probably more characteristic of small 
Pueblo II sites than Pueblo Alto (Akins 1987— see 
also discussion of jewelry-making tool kits below). 

Wills also notes decreased use of quartzite and 
increased use of petrified wood for hammerstones 
through time. He evaluated the possibilities that form 
or source depletion were causal factors, but ruled 
them out. Like Akins, he assigned the reason for 



differences in materials to a change in the function of 
hammerstones. Because his study was limited, Wills 
was unable to test propositions, but he did suggest 
several points to ponder. Among them was the role 
of quartzite versus petrified wood hammerstones in 
chipped stone tool manufacture. He thought that 
quartzite, being denser, could have been better suited 
for flint working using hard hammer percussion, 
especially on chert or chalcedonic materials. In turn, 
petrified wood would have been used in later stages 
of manufacture when more precise percussion control 
was needed. Thus, if more bulk reduction was taking 
place at source areas and blanks were more often 
imported at later dates, with final tool production 
taking place in the canyon, this could be a viable 
hypothesis. 

Cameron indicates that there is a shift in how 
exotic chipped stone materials are brought into Chaco 
Canyon around A.D. 900. In the earlier periods, the 
low ratios of tools to debitage indicated that most 
exotic material was brought in as finished tools. 
From A.D. 1020 to 1120, the ratio is much higher 
and it decreases slightly from A.D. 1120 to 1320, 
indicating it was brought in as raw material or cores. 
Even here, however, there are differences by material 
types with most Morrison Formation materials 
coming in as finished tools between A.D. 1020 to 
1120; the obsidians from the Jemez were acquired in 
bulk from A.D. 1120 to 1220. 

One site specific instance where the data are 
carefully evaluated is seen at a small site, 29SJ 1360. 
McKenna (1984:248) discusses the use of petrified 
wood for later stages of chipped stone tool 
production. He found a decrease in reduction of 
larger cores through time and he comments that 
petrified wood hammerstones were probably used 
more extensively on massive objects and suggests that 
they were a general-use item rather than a task- 
specific tool. 



1224 Chaco Artifacts 



In his report on Pueblo Alto, Windes (1987) 
associates the splintery petrified wood hammerstones 
with sharpening of grinding stones; hammer- 
stone/abraders were linked to construction. 
Differences in material types were linked to motor 
habits and possibly types of veneer on which these 
tools were used. Again, the highest frequency of 
splintery petrified wood found among the chipped 
stones is documented for A.D. 1020 to 1120 (Table 
3.5), the period when the greatest amount of 
greathouse construction took place (Lekson 1984:266- 
167, Figure 5.2). This building boom in the large 
sites, however, contrasts with data from small-house 
sites, where it is possible that there was a hiatus in 
building during the period from the A.D. 1040s to 
the early 1100s (Truell 1986:143-144). Truell 
(1986:144) notes that we do not have a good 
explanation for this difference; she postulates that 
inhabitants of small sites may have worked at the 
greathouses and spent much of their time there. 

Breternitz' study of axes and mauls included 
several suggestions that pertain to material types and 
functions. The sample from the Chaco Project 
indicates that the harder materials were preferred for 
axes (70 percent) but not necessarily for mauls (only 
34 percent). He noted that the earlier sites 
(Basketmaker III through Pueblo I) had fewer stone 
axes and that all but two from 29SJ 628 were made 
from locally available sandstones. By Pueblo II, not 
only was there an increase in the number of axes, but 
there was also a greater diversity of material types. 
In Pueblo III, the numbers decreased and all were 
made from cobbles, probably obtained from the San 
Juan River Valley. Breternitz postulated a link 
between this pattern and the procurement of timber 
for both building construction and fires. If local 
wood sources were being depleted during Pueblo II, 
when above-ground construction of greathouse and 
small sites began, timber import would have been 
necessary. Possibly, material used to make axes for 
felling timber were picked up and shaped closer to 
the timber source, thus an increase in imported 
cobble axes relating to the northern sources. 
Breternitz also indicates that the number of axes at 
Aztec and in the Mesa Verde area are proportionally 
greater than those in the canyon. In addition to their 
use in construction and the correlation between tree 
resources and number of axes, Windes (1987) also 
considers a possible ritual significance as well, with 
axes considered to be valuable items. This inter- 
pretation is based on ethnographic comparisons and 



is a topic that could use further evaluation. 

In her study of manos, Cameron documents that 
26 were one-hand or ovoid in shape. Of these, five 
were quartzite; only one other quartzite mano was 
analyzed, which indicates that quartzite was selected 
predominantly for one-handed manos and sandstone 
for two-handed manos. Assuming that one-handed 
manos were used in basin metates to grind wild plant 
seeds, these should have appeared primarily in 
Archaic and Basketmaker sites. Cameron indicates 
that the highest relative frequency of one-handed 
manos occurs in the period A.D. 500 to 600 (Table 
8.7); yet, about half were recovered from pro- 
vienences dating prior to A.D. 920 and half from 
later layers (Tables 8.7 and 8.8). Thus, continued 
use is predicted for wild plant resources, a fact 
substantiated through palynological and macro- 
botanical analyses (Cully 1985; M. Toll 1985). In 
her summary of the characteristic changes in amounts 
of corn and wild plant foods utilized through time, 
M. Toll (1985:266-268) notes temporal shifts that 
may be related to different adaptations or environ- 
mental change. Although wild plants are present at 
all times, they are present in high numbers when 
compared to the amount and types of corn remains 
during the A.D. 1000s but decrease around A.D. 
1100. Fluctuations are also evident at other Chaco 
related sites in the San Juan Basin (M. Toll 
1985:Table5.11). 

Cameron suggests that rectangular-to-squarish 
two-handed manos were probably used until wear 
effected new shapes — multifaceted or wedged — prior 
to their discard. Data from 29SJ 1360 (McKenna 
1984:257) support this hypothesis. Windes (1987: 
339, 1993a) also considered the two mano sizes to be 
related to function, food versus non-food and type of 
vegetal material. By the A.D. 1100s, the small 
grinding surface may be associated with the use of 
more wild plant seeds, an idea explored by Schelberg 
in his discussion of metates. 

Although Cameron suggests that the shapes of 
the manos change with their use and wear, she also 
notes that around A.D. 920 a change from wedge- 
shaped to beveled or triangular-shaped manos 
occurred. She suggests that a new grinding stroke 
was developed, possibly related to the use of enclosed 
trough metates in communal bins. In Chaco, it was 
not associated with the use of slab metates, as 
suggested by Bartlett (1933:18-19); the majority of 



Inferences 1225 



the beveled and triangular manos in Chaco had canted 
ends of the same average length as the trough 
metates. 

Schelberg's data on metates further supports the 
use of trough metates throughout the Chaco 
Phenomenon. Unlike Bartlett (1933) and others, 
Schelberg does not visualize a pan-Anasazi change 
from trough to slab metates during the Pueblo II 
period. He questions whether this change that was 
noted especially for sites in Arizona may have been 
due to efficiency or to changes in the types of corn 
being ground. Flint corns are harder than flour 
corns; the types of metates needed to contain the 
pulverized grains could have been different. Also, 
utilization of space within sites may have affected the 
types of metates employed in grinding tasks. Bartlett 
(1933) did suggest that a permanent location for 
grinding bins and creation of specific grinding areas 
affected metate morphology, but the increased 
efficiency hypothesis seems to have dominated the 
literature for the past several decades. 

In addition to corn, other items would have 
been ground on metates. Among them are clay for 
pottery, pigments for paints, pollen for ceremonies, 
and plants and herbs for medicinal purposes. Perhaps 
these different materials would have affected the sizes 
and shapes of metates and not just manos, as 
suggested by Cameron (see above). 

Windes (1987) takes a slightly different but 
similar approach to the explanation of change. The 
shift from portable to enclosed metates and back 
again may be related to social organization, 
subsistence, or permanent site use. Although 
seasonal use versus permanent use of a site may 
condition the type of grinding facilities, Windes 
preferred to correlate the change in metates with a 
change in the use of space, patterns of trash disposal, 
and changes in subsistence. Climatic change in the 
late A.D. 1000s and early 1100s is correlated with 
the presence of smaller corn cobs and use of more 
economic grasses at Pueblo Alto. If there were an 
increase in wild foods, along with increased use of 
com, mealing bins may have been used to grind more 
foodstuffs and thinner metates were possibly utilized. 
According to Windes, once fewer grasses were 
needed, mealing bins would disappear in Chaco 
Canyon and thicker metates would reappear. 

On the non-utilitarian level, turquoise and shell, 



as well as jewelry items, were used as offerings as 
early as Basketmaker III (e.g., offerings in the great 
kiva at 29SJ 423). These two materials were the 
only long-distance imports of the time. They 
continued to have a somewhat restricted use 
throughout Chaco prehistory, e.g., with burials in the 
A.D. 900s at Pueblo Bonito versus a shale necklace 
with Burial at 29SJ 1360 (Akins 1986), which 
suggests a contrast between groups of people living 
in small sites and greathouses (see Distribution and 
Consumption). 

Of interest is how much evidence there is for 
reuse of artifacts. Several sherds had been made into 
pendants. Debris from jewelry-making or poorer 
quality turquoise objects, some of which were not 
completed, were placed as offerings in kivas. This 
type of behavior would be expected by people who 
had imported objects or materials from a long 
distance and probably at considerable cost (no matter 
how cost is calculated). 

In particular, most of the ground stone tools 
have been reused for multiple purposes. For 
example, Truell (1992:165) noted the paucity of 
metates at 29SJ 627; she recovered many of these 
items in the masonry walls at 29SJ 633, another 
small-house site located nearby (Mathien 1991). 
Akins pointed to recycling in her evaluation of 
abraders. Breternitz notes that some axes from 29SJ 
627 were also used hammerstones. 

The numerous imports suggest accessibility to 
high numbers of these goods; yet the reuse of locally 
available materials suggest frugality or conservative 
behavior. The implications for behavior of local 
populations needs to be explored, especially as this 
bears upon interpretation of social complexity. 

Tool Kits 

Based on the data from these analyses, several 
types of tool kits can be described. 

Pueblo Construction 

The tools used in building structures vary, 
depending on the task undertaken during a particular 
stage of construction. Stone axes, generally made 
from locally available sandstone during the 
Basketmaker Hi-Pueblo I period, were probably used 
for tree-felling. The species of wood used to build 



1226 Chaco Artifacts 



early pitstructures (locally available pinyon and 
juniper) were different from those found in later 
greathouses; smaller logs were procured. During 
Pueblo II and Pueblo III, when longer and thicker 
logs of ponderosa pine were used in the greathouses 
(Dean 1992:39-40), the proportion of harder imported 
cobbles, probably obtained from the San Juan River 
valley increased, and fewer sandstone axes were 
used. By Pueblo III, none of the softer stones were 
in use. 

Large polishing stones, analyzed as abraders, 
were described by Akins and attributed to wall 
construction and maintenance activities. Windes 
(1987:296-299) puts hafted hammers and picks in this 
category, as well as hammerstone/abraders made of 
silicified wood up until the early A.D. 1000s, and 
sandstone thereafter (Windes 1987:308-321). Most 
hafted hammerstones/abraders found in construction 
debris at Pueblo Alto were a hard gray indurated 
sandstone (Windes 1987:296). 

Ceramic Manufacture 

Clays for body and slip, polishers and scrapers, 
paint substances, and firing areas are needed to make 
pottery. Akins discussed a number of polishers; 
smaller pot polishers were attributed to the pottery- 
making tool kit. This was the only artifact type 
found in any abundance during the analyses of 
materials from this project. Toll (Table 2.67) 
indicates other sites where several of the expected 
artifacts were found. 

Chipped Stone Tool Manufacture and 
Maintenance 

Wills suggested that quartzite hammerstones, 
probably used for hard hammer percussion in the 
initial stages of production, and petrified wood, used 
for more precise percussion control during later 
stages of manufacture, were part of the chipped stone 
tool manufacturing tool kit. As noted above, these 
items may have had other uses as well. Akins 
differentiated grooved abraders, often described as 
shaft sharpeners and point sharpeners. No other tools 
were found that would be attributed to this tool kit. 

Food Grinding and Preparation 

In addition to manos and metates that are used 
for food grinding and preparation, several other 



artifact types can be associated with these tasks. As 
Schelberg points out, Lange (1959:117) observed 
hammerstones were used at Cochiti Pueblo for 
sharpening grinding stones before use, especially 
manos. They were used to peck the metates on a 
somewhat regular basis. The manolike abraders and 
the cornbreaker abraders described by Akins are also 
part of this tool kit. 

McKenna (1984:271) describes the cornbreakers 
at 29SJ 1360 as hard active abraders that have 
extensive abrasion on all sides and battered poles; 
extensive use of appropriately shaped unmodified 
stones or old manos would contribute to the shape of 
the pestle. These tools could have acted as both 
hammerstones and grinders, similar to a biscuit or 
one-hand mano. Woodbury (1954:89-90) suggested 
these cylindrical hammerstones were primarily used 
in food processing. 

Windes (1993a) included manos, metates, 
hammerstones, some abraders, corn crushers, and 
choppers in his description of grinding tool kits at 
29SJ 629. 

Pigment Grinding and Preparation 

Akins was able to differentiate several types of 
abrading stones used to grind pigments. These 
included stones abraded for their pigment (described 
as paint stones in several reports, e.g., 29SJ 
627 — Truell 1992), paint grinders, paint mortars, and 
three types of palettes (undifferentiated, raised 
border, and incidental). There was often evidence of 
the pigments on these artifacts. Schelberg also 
indicates that metates would have been used for this 
purpose. 

Windes (1993a) suggests that there may be a 
correlation between the numerous red paint stones 
recovered, especially at 29SJ 628, with the use of a 
fugitive red paint on Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I 
ceramics. He also postulates that around the A.D. 
900s to 1000s, if there were increased ceremonialism, 
the presence of more formal paint stones would be 
expected. Greater quantities of blue and green 
(azurite and malachite) were recovered at Pueblo 
Bonito, Chetro Ketl, Pueblo Alto, and the small sites 
(Table 10.3). The painted wood recovered from 
Chetro Ketl (Vivian et al. 1978) indicates that 
numerous colors were used for decorating ceremonial 
items. 



Inferences 1227 



Jewelry-making 

One of the best described tool kits, based on 
artifact associations, is for jewelry-making. Akins' 
information on active and passive lapidary abraders, 
especially their association with turquoise debris 
(Mathien 1984), led her to associate these with 
jewelry-making activities. She noted that the files 
recovered from 29SJ 629 were very similar to those 
reported for Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954:123) and 
identified by the Zuni workmen as being a part of 
turquoise and other ornament-making tool kits. 
Schelberg recorded two metates that may have been 
reused as drill bases. One each was recovered from 
29SJ 627 and 29SJ 389. Cameron and Lekson 
describe the chalcedonic silicitied wood drills 
associated with this work. 

Prior to Pueblo II, Windes (1987) reiterates that 
lapidary abraders were rare. Because of the unusual 
amounts of turquoise debris and associated tools 
recovered at 29SJ 629, Windes (1993a, 1993b) 
pursued the description of a jeweler's tool kit. He 
established the presence of several subtypes of 
lapidary abraders based on weight. The heaviest 
abraders were intentionally shaped, approximately 22 
x 14 x 3 cm in size, and 1,325 g in weight. In 
addition to those recovered from the floor of Pithouse 
2 at 29SJ 629, similar large lapidary abraders are 
documented at 29SJ 1360 (Pithouse floor), Room 326 
in Pueblo Bonito, and Room 23 at Pueblo del 
Arroyo — sites that Mathien (1984) indicated had 
sufficient turquoise debris and other materials in 
various stages of manufacture to be considered places 
where jewelry was made. The three smaller subtypes 
of lapidary abraders were considered to be mor- 
phologically indistinct. Windes also notes that some 
abraders had groove sizes that correlated with the 
sizes of beads and pendants recovered at 29SJ 629. 
The four files from 29SJ 629 resemble those from 
Pueblo Bonito, Pueblo del Arroyo, and Be 50. 
Windes includes the small drills of silicified wood 
(1140) that were recovered at several sites in Chaco 
Canyon (Cameron, Lekson, this volume). Windes 
also considers selenite as a possible rouge or abrasive 
that could be used to assist the drilling process. 

One problem for archeologists has always been 
the prehistoric drilling techniques. The silicified 
wood drills recovered at several Chaco sites are too 
large to make the small perforations in the tiny beads 
recovered from several sites (Mathien 1992a). Haury 



(1931) addressed this topic, performed several 
experiments using cactus spines, and concluded they 
could have functioned as drills in such instances. 
These perishable materials have not been recovered 
during the Chaco Project, but Gillespie (1993) does 
comment on the presence of porcupine quills in OP1 
at 29SJ 629, which was the sealed pit that contained 
turquoise debris, lapidary abraders and stone drills. 
In 1993, Rosalyn Renwick, a jeweler, suggested that 
heating cactus spines or porcupine quills, then 
burning a spot in the center of the small turquoise 
bead preforms may have aided in accurate placement 
of the drill by indenting the surface slightly prior to 
working the drill. She indicated that the difficulty of 
steadying any prehistoric drill, especially centering 
perforations on both sides when drilling small pieces, 
could be alleviated in this manner. Once the 
perforation is begun, drilling with the thinner spines 
or quills could be accomplished using sand as a 
rouge. 

Craft Specialization 

Overall, the data from the Chaco Project 
excavations do not support a high level of craft 
specialization, with one possible exception— jewelry- 
making. There were possibly periods when some 
group activities allowed for task differentiation other 
than that which would normally occur when variation 
in individual skills and group needs are considered. 

Food Preparation 

Milling areas were identified at 29SJ 1360 
(McKenna 1984:257), 29SJ 627 (Truell 1992), 29SJ 
629 (Windes 1993b), and 29SJ 389 (Windes 1987). 
At 29SJ 1360, an extramural area east of Pithouse B, 
contained an L-shaped wall with clusters of manos 
and three cachement basins: McKenna inferred its 
use as an intermittent milling area because there were 
no in situ metates or bin walls. Formalized grinding 
areas were not yet developed (McKenna 1984:268) at 
the time that the area around Pithouse B at 29SJ 1360 
was in use (early Pueblo II). 

Windes (1993a) indicates that some milling 
areas (29SJ 627, 29SJ 1360, and 29SJ 389-Pueblo 
Alto) contained three bins, while those at 29SJ 629 
had only two. He correlates several shifts, e.g., the 
decrease of chert and quartzitic hammerstones that 
indicate less flaked tool reduction using a hard 
hammerstone technique, with shifts in hunting and the 



1228 Chaco Artifacts 



increased importance of horticulture in the A.D. 
900s. 

Related to food production is the manufacture of 
grinding implements. In Chaco Canyon, sandstone is 
abundant and no locality for making these implements 
has been documented. Outside of the canyon, one 
metate preparation area has been reported. Shelley 
(1983:93-97) indicates a concentration of metates (in 
various stages of manufacture and refurbishing), was 
recovered at Salmon Ruin in the late A.D. 1000s to 
early 1100s and may represent either part-time or 
full-time production specialists. 

Chipped Stone Tool Manufacture and 
Maintenance 

Based on an examination of the higher numbers 
of the angular hammerstones (possibly used in 
shaping chipped stone tools) found in numerous 
proveniences (Table 6.13), there could have been 
widespread chipping on floors of kivas, great kivas, 
pithouses, and rooms. Cameron (this volume), 
however, could not identify craft specialization. She 
and Lekson document the probablility that several 
skilled flint knappers prepared the points that were 
recovered with some burials or caches. Some tool 
manufacturing may have taken place on the floor of 
the pitstructure at 29SJ 423 during the A.D. 500 to 
600s and in Room 100 at 29SJ 389 (Pueblo 
Alto)(Cameron, this volume), but the evidence does 
not support craft specialization. 

Ceramic Production 

Toll's discussion of ceramic production indicates 
that he expects this to be a small-scale operation 
conducted by several families or work units 
throughout the Anasazi region, particularly in the 
Chuska area, where he thinks the beginnings of 
ceramic specialization are evident. Unfortunately, 
there were only limited data to indicate pottery- 
making in Chaco Canyon (Table 2.67) and what little 
there is does not support major craft specialization 
within the canyon. 

Jewelry Production 

The data on passive and active lapidary abraders 
led Akins to make several inferences about craft 
specialization. The association with turquoise debris 
(Tables 5.31 and 5.89) indicates that jewelry-making 



would have taken place at several sites; the number 
of lapidary stones, their size and evidence of use of 
those recovered from 29SJ 629 are probable 
indications that true craft specialization did not occur 
until Pueblo II. People at six other sites may have 
made jewelry for occasional or personal use — an 
inference similar to Jernigan's (1978:p. 228), whose 
research on jewelry from the Anasazi, Hohokam, and 
Mogollon cultures indicated to him that there were 
few jewelry-making specialists. 

Several possible jewelry-making areas were 
suggested, based on evidence of turquoise debris and 
partially completed ornaments (Mathien 1984). More 
detailed analyses of the sites makes it possible to 
suggest differential labor investments at some of these 
sites, with only one at 29SJ 629 being a major craft 
production area. Other well-documented evidence is 
available at 29SJ 1360. The remaining data are 
sketchy (Mathien 1984). 

McKenna (1984) elaborates on two areas at site 
29SJ 1360— the floor of Pithouse B and Plaza Area 5. 
Fortunately, Pithouse B artifacts remained intact 
rather than having been carried off when the site was 
abandoned. This pitstructure had been a living area 
in which five people were trapped and remained 
where they died. The roof remains were not 
removed until excavation by the Chaco Project staff, 
an unusual occurrence in Chacoan small site 
archeology. Because of this, McKenna (1984:279) 
was able to indicate multiple uses for the structure. 
The bench was probably a multipurpose work area 
and also a temporary storage area. The floor 
contained sets of six lapidary abraders; one small and 
two large abraders were leaning against the wall near 
Burial 2 (an adult female who had been asleep when 
asphyxiated), one large abrader was found against the 
north wall, and a small round one near the leg of 
Burial 2. There were also several other tools 
present. Plaza Area 5 contained a soft tabular active 
abrader that had pitting from anvil use or possibly 
from bead drilling. 

Windes' (1993b) descriptions of 29SJ 629 are 
quite detailed. Thousands of pieces of turquoise 
debris and ornaments in various stages of 
manufacture were found in Pithouse 2, and in Other 
Pit 1 of the plaza. The amount of turquoise 
associated with drills, abraders, and other possible 
jewelry-making tools are convincing evidence for 
more labor investment than expected for one family's 



Inferences 1229 



use. Judge (1989) and Windes (1993a) discuss the 
possibilities of turquoise jewelry-making by 
inhabitants of this site and others in Chaco Canyon as 
suppliers for a much larger market. Windes also 
suggests sites to the east of the park boundary 
participated in this occupation, but no excavations 
have been carried out. The amount of turquoise 
debris present at 29SJ 629 is unusual; thus, these 
inferences need verification. 

Outside of Chaco Canyon, there is very little 
evidence for jewelry-making. The Basket maker II 
site, Ignacio 7:2A (Morris and Burgh 1954:57), and 
the Twin Butte site in Petrified Forest (Wendorf 
1953:138, 155) both have some evidence to suggest 
such work. Matt Schmader (1994) found a burial 
with considerable amounts of turquoise and several 
shells in various stages of manufacture at the 
Artificial Leg-Basketmaker site in the Rio Grande 
area. Overall, there is very little pre-A.D. 900 
evidence for jewelry crafts people. 

One later possibility for large-scale jewelry- 
working is the Andrews site, where many pieces of 
turquoise in all stages of manufacture were collected 
from the surface. Excavations have not been carried 
out; confirmation awaits more research. A small- 
scale claystone jewelry production area has been 
described at Shumway Pueblo (Swift 1980). The 
material was locally available and the volume of work 
was probably limited— perhaps for local consumption 
only. 

The fine workmanship and small size of beads 
seen in a few pieces of turquoise from several 
sites— Pueblo Alto, dating ca. A.D. 1020 to 1120, 
Kin Nahasbas in the A.D. 900s, and Pueblo 
Bonito— are not unlike those seen in the early black 
beads of the Kayenta area (Guernsey and Kidder 
1921; Kidder and Guernsey 1919). The amount of 
time invested in making beads and pendants, 
however, suggests that this work was time 
consumptive (Mathien 1992a), but how many people 
worked for how long and whether this was a full-time 
specialization is still not certain. 

As suggested above, the overall lack of evidence 
for craft specialization does not preclude the 
possibility that some individuals or even families 
produced items for trade to others in their community 
or outside the locality. Those with talents or special 
work tasks may have been active in spare time or 



part-time. Several such possibilities were identified. 
During my reading of these chapters, I noted that 
several investigators cited the unusual artifact 
contents of 29SJ 628. These include the unusual 
number of bone tools (Miles 1985), the unusual 
number of red paintstones (Windes 1993a), and the 
difference in axe materials (Breternitz, Chapter 7). 
Windes (personal communication, 1993), who is 
currently preparing data on the Basketmaker III and 
Pueblo I sites excavated by the Chaco Project, 
concurred that this site was different from others of 
its time period in Chaco Canyon. He suggested that 
it fits a pattern found in the Zuni region. A complete 
settlement pattern study has not been carried out; the 
possibility that different sites within an area had part- 
time specialists needs to be investigated. 

Distribution and Consumption 
Greathouse versus Small-house Sites 

Several investigators were concerned with the 
differences in consumption between inhabitants of 
small sites and the greathouses. To discern these 
differences, they attempted to estimate rates of 
consumption of several artifact types, using 
proveniences that are somewhat contemporaneous at 
Pueblo Alto (29SJ 389), 29SJ 627, and 29SJ 629. To 
do this, households, as determined by site excavators 
(Truell 1992; Windes 1987, 1993b), were used. 

Based on the artifacts recovered from 
construction trash, Toll (this volume) indicates that 
consumption of ceramics during the Gallup period 
was from eight-to-ten times as great at large houses; 
yet other trash at the site does not show this 
difference. He cautioned about comparisons between 
sites that are not truly contemporaneous; the three 
sites most often compared are different in that the 
two smaller sites are slightly earlier than the 
greathouse. Chipped stone usage was estimated at 
0.9 kg /year for Pueblo Alto households versus 0.2 
kg/year for village households (Cameron, this 
volume). Again, contemporaneous occupations were 
assumed for comparative purposes. 

During the Classic Bonito Phase, mano 
consumption was three times greater at Pueblo Alto 
than at 29SJ 629; Cameron inferred that the 
population at Pueblo Alto, therefore, is larger than 
would be indicated by architectural households, 
assuming that manos are domestic items. If, 
however, these were used to grind foodstuffs used 



1230 Chaco Artifacts 



during scheduled communal feasts and not for year- 
round activities, this difference may not be related to 
the permanent population at the site. The question of 
seasonal use, therefore, warrants some attention. 

Because of the small samples, Cameron 
compared manos from a longer period using data 
from Pueblo Alto and Una Vida, plus 29SJ 627 and 
29SJ 629 for all periods after A.D. 920 (Table 8.10). 
For beveled manos only, there was a lower 
percentage at the small sites; triangular mano 
frequencies were similar for both the large and small 
sites. Cameron also indicated a new grinding stroke 
was used at both types of sites and was associated 
with communal grinding bins. 

Akins (1985:395-402) found that mammalian 
body sizes were similar at both types of sites, but 
deer use increased earlier at large sites. The sheer 
numbers also indicate more faunal remains were 
recovered at Pueblo Alto than at the small house 
sites. She questioned whether the estimates of 
population and time of use were accurate. Cameron 
also asked if the time estimate was correct and 
concluded that it was probably so because the time 
span of 50 years is one of the best dated (Windes 
1987). 

Are the estimates of households correct? 
Lekson (1984) indicates that the number of rooms 
added to the large sites during the Classic Bonito 
Phase (A. D. 1050 to 1 100) were generally not living 
or storage rooms. Based on their size and features, 
they must have had other functions. 

That there is a dichotomy between the two types 
of sites is likely. Even though all sites in Chaco 
Canyon have more luxury goods than other 
contemporaneous sites in the San Juan Basin, there 
are differences within sites in the canyon. Exotic 
jewelry made from turquoise and shell appear in 
larger quantity in greathouses; jewelry items made 
from local materials tend to be found with inhabitants 
of smaller sites, as they are throughout the San Juan 
Basin. There were exceptions, but overall, this 
distribution seems representative. It is possible that 
there were restrictions on use of the more valuable 
imported goods that are partially religious or partly 
status related. Akins (1986) and Mathien (this 
volume) document the unusual numbers found mainly 
with burials, most of which were recovered from 
Pueblo Bonito (Judd 1954; Pepper 1909). There are 



more offerings in the kivas and great kivas at Pueblo 
Bonito, even though a few offerings were also 
recovered from small sites. 

These data suggest that there were differences 
between site inhabitants and the functions of small 
sites and greathouses; Windes' (1987) data from 
Pueblo Alto indicate that there are also differences in 
stratigraphy between the trash middens at greathouses 
and small houses (Truell 1986) and that many of the 
rooms in Pueblo Alto have functions not related to 
standard living house units. Windes suggests some of 
these are road related; others may be for storage 
(Lekson 1984). 

In summary, there are some differences in 
consumption between small and large sites. Some 
may be due to temporal control, some to functions 
carried out at these structures, and others to the rise 
of social complexity among the Anaszai. Pertinent to 
resolving these differences are the possibilities of 
seasonal use of some sites or areas within the 
greathouses, estimations of population density, the 
amount of social complexity, and the role of Chaco 
as a central place during the Classic Bonito Phase. 

Discussion 

The data in this volume contribute to our 
knowledge about the prehistoric adaptation of the 
inhabitants of one canyon in the approximate center 
of the San Juan Basin from Basketmaker III 
adaptation to a sedentary agricultural life, through 
Pueblo IQ when the canyon was abandoned. It is not 
my intention to discuss the Chaco system in great 
detail in this summary of Chaco artifact studies; this 
has been done in several other studies (Crown and 
Judge 1992; Doyel 1992; Wilcox 1993, among 
others). The search for explanation continues, as do 
the models and theories on human behavioral change 
through time and the methods for study. The work 
will continue as future excavators find new pieces of 
the puzzle, but the complete picture may never be 
known (Doyel and Lekson 1992). Here I will touch 
briefly on a few topics raised above. 

Seasonality 

The question of seasonal use of sites in Chaco 
Canyon was considered by several of the 
archeologists who worked on the Chaco Project. 
Some of the data are useful for trying to examine the 



Inferences 1231 



possibility of seasonal use; Akins (1985) provides an 
example of the difficulties in interpretation. Using 
faunal remains as her database, Akins (1985:393-395) 
assumed that spring and summer would have been 
devoted to agricultural pursuits and the trapping of 
smaller animals. Artiodactyl hunting would occur in 
the fall season after the harvest. Communal hunts 
would take place after the pinyon harvest. Faunal 
remains should vary if sites were used seasonally. 
The results of her evaluation suggested a change from 
predominant use of small animals (summer use 
pattern) in early Pueblo II to greater use of 
artiodactyls and larger mammals around A.D. 950 
(winter use pattern) and a later introduction of 
turkeys along with smaller mammals around the late 
1100s (summer use pattern). Akins noted these 
temporal changes; the height of winter use correlates 
with the expansion of the Chaco Phenomenon and 
may indicate greater scheduling rather than seasonal 
use of particular sites within the canyon. Data from 
some of the earlier small sites may indicate winter 
use, but the question still remains open. 

Population Estimates 

Akins (1985:404) estimates a population that 
could be supported by rabbits and a primary 
artiodactyl would be 702 people within the park 
boundaries, or 2,727 in a larger area (as far as 10 km 
distant from the canyon). This would be too few 
animals for even the conservative population 
estimates provided; therefore, she suggests that dried 
meats were imported from the surrounding region. 
Travel and interaction with other areas is documented 
from Basket maker III on. Individual site estimates 
and the number of families versus occupation spans 
were overall low (Akins 1985:400-401). 

During the Chaco Project, Lekson (1988), 
Schelberg (1982), and Windes (1984, 1987) reviewed 
the estimates for the population of Chaco Canyon 
made by others (Drager 1976; Hayes 1981). They 
used different methods to arrive at the number of 
households, etc., but they agreed that the larger 
numbers (ca. 5,000-6,000) that earlier studies 
suggested were not particularly viable. Unfortunately, 
all of these studies suffer from our inability to know 
if the assumptions we make about the number of 
people per unit measured are accurate or that our unit 
of living space is correct. These estimates are crucial 



to devising levels of socio-political complexity for the 
system and will probably be debated for years to 
come. 

Socio-political Complexity 

Lekson (1988), Mathien (1992b), Schelberg 
(1982), Sebastian (1988), Toll (1992), Vivian (1990) 
and Wilcox (1993) all focus on the understanding of 
social and political complexity within the Chaco 
system. As Sebastian (1992) points out, however, 
the data used to support the ideas about how this 
system was organized are the same; it is the 
theoretical stance that differs when we argue from the 
archeological context. She suggests evaluations based 
on a systemic context; I concur with her. 

Scholars also question the definition of the 
region that has been defined for the Chaco 
Phenomenon and the place of Chaco within the 
broader Anasazi culture area (Blinman and Wilson 
1992; Doyel and Lekson 1992: Toll, Blinman and 
Wilson 1992). McKenna's (1991) observation that 
late Mesa Verde pottery styles seem more like a 
continuum of a long-established tradition leads to the 
concept that these two cultural distinctions (Chaco 
and Mesa Verde) may, in fact, be one major 
adaptation; another idea echoed by Sebastian (1992). 

In summary, the National Park Service Chaco 
Project was the first major study to address Chaco 
Canyon's development within a broader framework 
than the individual site or the canyon itself, both from 
managerial and research perspectives. As the data 
accumulated and reasons were sought to explain how 
it was patterned and why, many investigators pursued 
explanations that led to current questions: What is 
the place of Chaco Canyon within the larger area of 
the San Juan Basin? Did that role change through 
time? More important, I think, is how does all this 
fit within Southwestern prehistory? What can we 
leam from this one example, taking into account the 
restrictions of a semi-arid environment and limited 
technology? Can we determine how humans adapt 
and change as populations grow, how they perceive 
and deal with slight changes in the environment, and 
what new ideas develop that allow them to organize 
people within this space? Much research remains to 
be done; hopefully, the contributions in this volume 
will assist others in this quest for knowledge. 



1232 Chaco Artifacts 



References 

Akins, Nancy J. 

1985 Prehistoric Faunal Utilization in Chaco 
Canyon Basketmaker IE Through Pueblo III. 
In Environment and Subsistence of Chaco 
Canyon, New Mexico , edited by Frances 
Joan Mathien, pp. 305-445. Publications in 
Archeology 18E, Chaco Canyon Studies. 
National Park Service, Albuquerque. 

1986 A Biocultural Approach to Human Burials 
from Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . Reports 
of the Chaco Center, No. 9. Branch of 
Cultural Research, National Park Service, 
Santa Fe. 

1987 The Abraders of Pueblo Alto. In 
Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex. 
Chaco Canyon. New Mexico 1975-1979. 
Volume HI. Part 1. Artifactual and 
Biological Analyses , edited by Frances Joan 
Mathien and Thomas C. Windes, pp. 359- 
380. Publications in Archeology 18F, 
Chaco Canyon Studies. National Park 
Service, Santa Fe. 

Bartlett, Katherine 

1933 Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff 
Region and their Relation to Others in the 
Southwest. Museum of Northern Arizona 
Bulletin 3:3-32. 

Blinman, Eric, and C. Dean Wilson 

1992 Ceramic Perspectives on Northern Anasazi 
Exchange. In The American Southwest and 
Mesoamerican Systems of Prehistoric 
Exchange, edited by Jonathon E. Ericson 
and Timothy G. Baugh, pp. 65-94. Plenum 
Press, New York. 

Crown, Patricia L., and W. James Judge (editors) 
1992 Chaco and Hohokam. Prehistoric Regional 
Systems in the American Southwest . School 
of American Research, Santa Fe. 



Dean, Jeffrey S. 

1992 Environmental Factors in the Evolution of 
the Chacoan Sociopolitical System. In 
Anasazi Regional Organization and the 
Chaco System , edited by David E. Doyel, 
pp. 35-43. Anthropological Papers No. 5. 
Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Doyel, David E. (editor) 

1992 Anasazi Regional Organization and the 
Chaco System . Anthropological Papers No. 
5, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Doyel, David E., and Stephen H. Lekson 

1992 Regional Organization in the American 
Southwest. In Anasazi Regional Organ- 
ization and the Chaco System , edited by 
David E. Doyel, pp. 15-21. 
Anthropological Papers No. 5. Maxwell 
Museum of Anthropology, University of 
New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Drager, Dwight L. 

1976 Anasazi Population Estimates with the Aid 
of Data Derived from Photogrammetric 
Maps. In Remote Sensing Experiments in 
Cultural Resource Studies , edited by Thomas 
R. Lyons, pp. 157-171. Reports of the 
Chaco Center No. 1. National Park Service 
and University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

Gillespie, William B. 

1993 Vertebrate Remains from 29SJ 629. In The 
Spadefoot Toad Site: Investigations at 29SJ 
629, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: 
Artifactual and Biological Analyses. 
Volume II , edited by Thomas C. Windes, 
pp. 343-395. Reports of the Chaco Center, 
No. 12. Branch of Cultural Research, 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 



Cully, Anne C, 

1985 Pollen Evidence of Past Subsistence and 
Environment at Chaco Canyon. In 
Environment and Subsistence of Chaco 
Canyon, New Mexico , edited by Frances 
Joan Mathien, pp. 135-245. Publications in 
Archeology 18E, Chaco Canyon Studies. 
National Park Service, Albuquerque. 



Guernsey, Samuel J., and Alfred Vincent Kidder 

1921 Basket-Maker Caves of Northeastern 
Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of 
American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(2). 

Haury, Emil W. 

1931 Minute Beads from Prehistoric Pueblos. 
American Anthropologist 33:80-87. 



Inferences 1233 



Hayes, Alden C. 

1981 A Survey of Chaco Canyon Archeology. In 
Archeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico , by Alden C. Hayes, David M. 
Brugge, and W. James Judge, pp. 1-68. 
Publications in Archeology 18 A, Chaco 
Canyon Studies. National Park Service, 
Washington, D.C. 

Jernigan, E. Wesley 

1978 Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest . 
School of American Research and University 
of New Mexico Press. Santa Fe and 
Albuquerque. 

Judd, Neil M . 

1954 The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito . 
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Vol. 
124. Washington, D.C. 

Judge, W. James 

1989 Chaco Canyon— San Juan Basin. In 
Dynamics of Southwest Prehistory , edited by 
Linda S. Cordell and George J. Gumerman, 
pp. 209-261. Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D.C. 

Kidder, Alfred Vincent, and Samuel J. Guernsey 

1919 Archaeological Explorations in Northeastern 
Arizona . Bureau of American Ethnology, 
Bulletin 65. Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D.C. 

Lange, Charles H. 

1959 Cochiti: A New Mexico Pueblo Past and 
Present . Southern Illinois University Press, 
Carbondale. 

Lekson, Stephen H. 

1984 Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico . Publications in Archeology 
18B, Chaco Canyon Series. National Park 
Service, Albuquerque. 

1988 Sociopolitial Complexity at Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico . Unpublished Ph.D. disser- 
tation, Department of Anthropology, Uni- 
versity of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Mathien, Frances Joan 

1984 Social and Economic Implications of Jewelry 
Items of the Chaco Anasazi. In Recent 
Research on Chaco Prehistory , edited by W. 



James Judge and John D. Schelberg, pp. 
173-186. Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 
8. Division of Cultural Research, National 
Park Service, Albuquerque. 

1992a Chaco Anasazi Beads: Material, Manufac- 
ture, Consumption, and Social Implications. 
Paper presented at "The Bead Trade in the 
Americas," Santa Fe, March 22. 

1992b Exchange Systems and Social Stratification 
among the Chaco Anasazi. In The Ameri- 
can Southwest and Mesoamerica. Systems 
of Prehistoric Exchange , edited by Jonathon 
E. Ericson and Timothy G. Baugh, pp. 27- 
63. Plenum Press, New York and London. 



Mathien, Frances Joan (editor) 

1991 Excavations at 29SJ 633: 



The Eleventh 



Hour Site. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . 
Reports of the Chaco Center No. 10. 
Branch of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Santa Fe. 

McKenna, Peter J. 

1984 The Architecture and Material Culture of 
29SJ1360. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . 
Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 7. 
Division of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Albuquerque. 

1991 Chaco Canyon's Mesa Verde Phase. In 
Excavations at 29SJ 633: The Eleventh 
Hour Site. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico. 
edited by Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 127- 
137. Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 10. 
Branch of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Santa Fe. 

Miles, J. 

1985 Overview of Bone Artifacts. Ms. on file 
National Park Service Chaco Archive, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Morris, Earl H., and R. F. Burgh 

1954 Basket Maker II Sites near Durango. 
Colorado . Carnegie Institution of Washing- 
ton, Publication 604. Washington, D.C. 

Pepper, George H. 

1909 The Exploration of a Burial Room in Pueblo 
Bonito, New Mexico. In Anthropological 
Essays: Putnam Anniversary Volume , pp. 
196-252. G. E. Steckert and Co., New 
York. 



1234 Chaco Artifacts 



Schelberg, John D. 

1982 Economic and Social Development as an 
Adaptation to a Marginal Environment in 
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico . Unpublished 
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthro- 
pology, Northwestern University, Evanston. 

Schmader, Matthew F. 

1944 Early Puebloan Site Structure and Techno- 
logical Organization in Middle Rio Grande 
Valley. New Mexixo . Unpublished Ph.D. 
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Sebastian, Lynne 

1988 Leadership, Power, and Productive Poten- 
tial: A Political Model of the Chaco Sys- 
tem . Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 
Department of Anthropology, University of 
New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

1992 Chaco Canyon and the Anasazi Southwest: 
Changing Views of Sociopolitical 
Organization. In Anasazi Regional Organi- 
zation and the Chaco System , edited by 
David E. Doyel, pp. 23-31. Anthropo- 
logical Papers No. 5, Maxwell Museum of 
Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

Shelley, P. H. 

1983 Lithic Specialization at Salmon Ruin. San 
Juan County. New Mexico . Unpublished 
Ph.D. disseration, Department of Anthro- 
pology, Washington State University, 
Pullman. 

Swift, Marilyn 

1980 Stone Tool and Bead Manufacture. In 
Excavations at Shumway Pueblo. An Early 
Pueblo HI Village in Northwestern New 
Mexico , by Meade Kemrer, Alan Reed, 
Penelope Whitten, and Marilyn Swift, pp. 
89-99. Contributions to Anthropology 
Series No. 193. Division of Contract Ar- 
chaeology, San Juan County Archaeological 
Research Center and Library, Farmington. 

Toll, H. Wolcott 

1992 Material Distributions and Exchange in the 
Chaco System. In Chaco and Hohokam. 
Prehistoric Regional Systems in the 
American Southwest , edited by Patricia L. 



Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 77-108. 
School of American Research, Santa Fe. 

Toll, H. Wolcott, Blinman, Eric, and C. Dean 
Wilson 

1992 Chaco in the Context of Ceramic Regional 
Systems. In Anasazi Regional Organization 
and the Chaco System , edited by David E. 
Doyel, pp. 147-157. Anthropological 
Papers No. 5. Maxwell Museum of Anthro- 
pology, University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque. 

Toll, MoIIie S. 

1985 An Overview of Chaco Canyon Macro- 
botanical Materials and Analysis to Date. In 
Environment and Subsistence of Chaco 
Canyon, New Mexico, edited by Frances 
Joan Mathien, pp. 247-277. Publications in 
Archeology 18E, Chaco Canyon Studies. 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Truell, Marcia L. 

1986 A Summary of Small Site Architecture in 
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Small Site 
Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New 
Mexico , by Peter J. McKenna and Marcia 
L. Truell, pp. 115-502. Publications in 
Archeology 18D, Chaco Canyon Studies. 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

1992 Excavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico. Volume I. The Architecture 
and Stratigraphy . Reports of the Chaco 
Center, No. 11. Branch of Cultural Re- 
search, National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Vivian, R. Gwinn 

1990 The Chacoan Prehistory of the San Juan 
Basin . Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. 

Vivian, R. Gwinn, Dulce N. Dodgen, and Gayle 
H. Hartmann 

1978 Wooden Ritual Artifacts from Chaco 
Canyon, New Mexico. The Chetro Ketl 
Collection . Anthropological Papers of the 
University of Arizona, No. 32. University 
of Arizona, Tucson. 

Wendorf, Fred 

1953 Archaeological Studies in the Petrified 
Forest National Monument . Museum of 
Northern Arizona, Bulletin 27. Flagstaff. 



Inferences 1235 



Wilcox, David R. 

1993 The Evolution of the Chacoan Polity. In 
The Chimney Rock Archaeological Sym- 
posium. October 20-21. 1990. Durango. 
CO . edited by J. McKim Malville and Gary 
Matlock, pp. 76-90. USDA Forest Service 
General Technical Report RM-227. Rocky 
Mountain Forest and Range Experimental 
Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Fort Collins. 

Windes, Thomas C. 

1984 A New Look at Population in Chaco 
Canyon. In Recent Research on Chaco 
Prehistory , edited by W. James Judge and 
John D. Schelberg, pp. 75-88. Reports of 
the Chaco Center, No. 8. Division of 
Cultural Research, National Park Service, 
Albuquerque. 

1987 Some Ground Stone Tools and Hammer- 
stones from Pueblo Alto. In Investigations 
at the Pueblo Alto Complex. Chaco Canyon. 
New Mexico 1975-1979. Volume IJJ. Part 1. 
Arti factual and Biological Analyses, edited 
by Frances Joan Mathien and Thomas C. 



Windes, pp. 291-358. Publications in 
Archeology 18F, Chaco Canyon Studies. 
National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

1993a Ground Stone, Chopping, and Percussion 
Tools from 29SJ 629. In The Spadefoot 
Toad Site. Investigations at 29SJ 629. 
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Artifactual 
and Biological Analyses . Volume II edited 
by Thomas C. Windes, pp. 201-268. Re- 
ports of the Chaco Center No. 12. Branch 
of Cultural Research, National Park Service, 
Santa Fe. 

1993b The Spadefoot Toad Site. Investigations at 
29SJ 629. Chaco Canyon. New Mexico . 
Reports of the Chaco Center, No. 12. 
Branch of Cultural Research, National Park 
Service, Santa Fe. 

Woodbury, Richard B. 

1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of Northern 
Arizona. Reports of the Awatovi Expedi- 
tion, No. 6. Papers of the Peabody 
Museum of American Archaeology and 
Ethnology . No. 34. Harvard University, 
Cambridge. 



1236 Chaco Artifacts 



Index 



Abajo Red-on-Orange, 416, 435 

Abalone sp., 1140, bracelet of, 1152, pendant of, 
1152, 1176, 1177; and mention of, 1139, 1142, 
1155, 1193, 1198 

Abel, Leland J., 416, 434, 435 

Abiquiu Formation, 622, 626 

abraders, 701; active, 705, 707-58; anvil 
combination, 732, 758, 773, 834-41, 927; by 
site, 841-934, 1142, and in situ, 934; evidence 
for multiple use of, 707; faceted, 725, 934; for 
ornaments, 1162; imported, 1222; lapidary, 
733, 773; passive, 758, 763-801, 1017; 
st nations for dimensions of, 702, and against 
dimension, 741; use over time, 716, 733, 819, 
823, 830, 845, 847, 853-54, 909, 921, and 
secondary use of, 704, 851 

Acoma area, 340; Mount Taylor, 104 

Adams, Richard N., 1016, 1077, 1151 

administration and specialization, 208 

Agaronis testacae. 1153 

agriculture. See horticulture 

Akins, Nancy J., 12, 156, 675, 702, and mentioned, 
68, 155, 208, 1162, 1165, 1176, 1199, 1206, 
1223, 1225, 1230, 1231 

Akins, Nancy J., and William B. Gillespie, 882, 
1157, 1166, 1168, 1170 

Akins, Nancy J., and John D. Schelberg, 208, 1176, 
1206 

alabaster, 1140, 1143, 1147, 1151, 1155 

albatite, 1140 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1123; riverine clay near, 
507 

Allan, W. C, 163 

Allison Member, 1121, 1122, 1123 

alluvium, 622; chipped stone from, 543; clay from, 
117 

Ambler, J. Richard, 165 

American Museum of Natural History, 1 149 

Anasazi, the, as recognizable by ceramics, 209; as a 
social group, 211, and the place of Chaco 
Canyon for, 1231; tools specific to, 541, 564, 
691, 1023 

andesite, 1123, 1177 



Andrews Group/Site, 95, 1191 

anklet, 1193 

Anodonta sp., 1138 

anthills, 98, 1157, 1162, 1163 

anthropomorphic figures, 263, 1138, 1151, 1192 

anvils, 732, 758, 773, 834-41, 927 

Apache tears, 629 

aragonite, 1123, 1138, 1177, 1182, 1184, 1199 

Archaic period, and chipped stone, 661, 679, 685, 
691, 698; and ground stone, 998, 1018; and 
ornaments, 1131, 1138-43, 1153; and Oshara- 
Cochise differences, 1143 

architecture, 9, 1176; beams and wood for, 601, 
993-94, and boards, 1193; decorated rock for, 
810; functions of rooms, 1230; isolated pit with 
ornaments, 1152, 1163; resonating chamber, 
927; shrines, 887, 1163, 1166, 1168; stone 
circles, 4, 725; tools for construction, 556, 
1225-26, and ground stone used in, 890, 999, 
1016, 1068, 1078-86 passim; tri-wall structures, 
1199 

argillite, 1120-22, 1150, 1152, 1162-63, 1191, 1199, 
1207 

Argopectin circularis. 1162 

Arizona, ceramics from, 76, 113, 132, 137, 165; 
chipped stone from, 676; ground stone from, 
967, 993, 1001, 1013, 1023, 1087; ornaments 
from, 1123, 1130, 1141, 1147, 1152, 1193 

Arizona State Museum, 1163 

Arnold, D. E., 84, 152, 161-64 

arrow points, 532, 561, 564, 573, 574, 590, 596, 
659-91; Archaic, 661, 679, 691; notching, 676, 
698; point sharpener, 812; shaping the blank, 
665 

arrow-shaft smoothers, 801; shaft shapers, 808 

artifacts, as index fossils, 1013; evidence for reuse 
of, 1225 

Artifacts of Pecos. The , Kidder, 977 

Artificial Leg site, 1155, 1229 

Ash, S. R., 628 

Atlatl Cave, 1131, bead from, 1138; pictograph at, 
1138 

Awatovi District, 1152 



1238 Chaco Artifacts 



Awatovi Expedition, 705, 823, 1016 

awls, evidence for manufacture of, 934 

axes and mauls, defining, 977; grooving, 980, 993; 

materials for, 990-93, 1222; reuse of, 980, 992 
Aztec, New Mexico, 1121 
Aztec Black-on-White, 392 
Aztec Ruins, 2; chipped stone at, 685, 687, 694; 

grooved stone at, 993; ground stone at, 772, 

796, and metates, 1082; ornaments at, 1183, 

1192-99 
Aztec state, Mexico, 208, 1014 
azurite, nodule of, 1184; ornaments of, 1147, 1150- 

52, 1177; pigment of, 1149 

Badger House/Community (Mesa Verde), 772, 823, 
830, 953, 1020, 1086, 1192 

Bajada point, 661 

Balfet, Helene, 152-53, 207 

balls, 1150, 1176 

Baltz, Elmer H., Sidney R. Ash, and Roger Y. 
Anderson, 76 

Banded Neck Culinary, 230. See also neck-banded 
wares 

Bandelier, AdolphF., 1014, 1016, 1047, 1204 

barite, 1123 

Bartlett, Katherine, 1003, 1013-18, 1023-25, and 
mentioned, 998-1000, 1006, 1008 

Basketmaker period, 153, 206; ornaments, 1131, 
1140-50, 1193, 1204 

Basketmaker III (BM III), ceramics for, 49, 129, 
156; chipped stone for, 665, 685, 687; ground 
stone for, 856, 887, 890, 909, 934, 
(axes/mauls) 988, 989, (hammerstones) 967, 
(manos/metates) 998, 1077; ornaments for, 
1204 

Basketmaker Ill-Pueblo I Whitewares, 123, 127 

Baugh, T. G., and F. W. Nelson, 628 

Baugh, Timothy G., 1184 

Be sites, mealing bins at, 1053; metate survey for, 
1077-80; tools at, 660 

Be 26 (Leyit Kin), 1042, 1077 

Be 50. See Tseh So 

Be 51, 3, 1037; arrow points at, 676, 679, and 
knives, 685; ground stone at, 763, 772, 792, 
796, 808, 823, 829, 1013, and mealing bins, 
1053; metates at, 1078; ornaments at, 1151; 
workshops at, 1170, 1207 

Be 53 (Ignorance Hollow), 1078 

Be 58, milling tools at, 1053, 1079 

Be 59, milling tools at, 1053, 1079, 1103; workshop 



at, 1170 
Be 193 (Lizard House), 1079 
Be 236, 3; ceramics at, 153, 161; ground stone at, 

823, (mauls), 991; milling tools at, 1053, 1016, 

1042, 1079, 1083 
Be 288, ground stone at, 1017 
Be 362, 3; ceramics and chipped stone at, 602; 

mealing bins at, 1053; metates at, 1026, and 

mentioned, 1030, 1033, 1037, 1040, 1056, 

1060, 1103; metate matches for, 1090 
beads, defining, 1131; bead blanks, 1131, 1142, 

1162, 1191; bilobed/figure-eight shaped, 1152, 

1176, 1177, 1184, 1192; manufacturing of, 
573, 596, 691, 808, and biconical perforation, 
1141, 1142; materials used for, (generally) 
1120-22, 1140, 1153, 1155, 1170, 1176, 1192, 
1229; beads of alabaster, 1143, 1151, 
aragonite, 1138, bone, 1138-42, 1147, 1176, 

1177, 1184, 1193, 1198, 1204, calcite, 1147, 
calcium-carbonate, 1139, hematite, 1140, 
lignite, 1140, 1147, 1198, seed, 1138, 1140-42, 
1152, serpentine, 1140, shale, 1151, 1155, 
shell, 1140-41, 1147, 1152, 1155, 1176, 1183, 
1192, 1198, slate, 1141, tufa, 1140, turquoise, 
1147, 1176, 1182-84, 1191, 1193, 1198-99, 
walnut shell, 1193, wood, 1138, 1152; used in 
shrines, 1168. See also colors separately 

Beaglehole, Ernest, 208 

Beals, Ralph L., George W. Brainerd, and Watson 

Smith, 435 
Beaumont, E. C, 77 
Bee Burrow, 151 
Bell, Robert E., 679 
bells, 1166, 1184, 1191, 1199 
bell-shaped pits, 921 
Bennett, Elizabeth, 1203 
Bennett, M. Ann, 110 
Bennett Gray, 218, 226 
Betancourt, Julio L., and Thomas R. Van Devender, 

162 
Bice, Richard A., 1183 

Bice, Richard A., and William M. Sundt, 1199 
Big Juniper House (Mesa Verde), 1020, 1085 
Binford, L. R., 951, 964 

binocular microscope, 74, 75, 79, 87, 102, 114 
bird bone, 1142, 1183, 1193, 1198 
bird-form vessel, duck pot, 69 
Bishop, Ronald L., 1130, 1162 
Bis sa'ani Community, 2; ceramics at, 70, 384, and 

clay source near, 117; hammerstones at, 964; 



Index 1239 



ornaments at, 1184 
black minerals, 1121, 1122, 1140, 1184, 1193, 1198 
Black Mesa area, 47, 127 
Black Mesa Black-on-White, 286, 298, 306, 384, 

406, 411 
black-on-red redware, defining, 416-33 
bladelet production, 698 
blades, 592, 659, 676 
Blagbrough, John W., 76, 101 
Blinman, Eric, 70, 71, 153, 200, 205, 206 
Blinman, Eric, and Clint Swink, 153 
Blinman, Eric, and C. Dean Wilson, 1222, 1231 
Bloomfield, New Mexico, 1139 
Blue Shale Corrugated, 245 
Bluff Black-on-Red, 416, 435 
Bobrowsky, Peter T., and Bruce F. Ball, 37 
Bohrer, Vorsila, 385 
bone, beads of, 1138-41, 1147, 1176, 1177, 1184, 

1193, 1198, 1204; game piece of, 1153; inlay 

of, 1192, and backings, 1193; tinklers of, 927; 

tools of, 934, 1229; tubes of, 1142, 1149, 

1152, 1153, 1176, 1177, 1184; mentions, 1147, 

1153, 1162, 1177, 1184, 1192, 1199 
Bonito Phase, 4, 10, 601-602, 856, 882, 977, 991, 

1080, 1229-30; and ornaments, 1130, 1203, 

1205-7, Early, 1157-66, Classic, 1149, 1166- 

68, Late, 1168-91 
Bordaz, J., 951 
bowls, 49, 58; bowl-jar ratio, 164; exterior 

decorations on, 60, 156; import chronology 

and, 135; redware, 416; temper for, 85; 

volumes of, 73-74; whiteware diameters of, 59 
bracelets, 1147, 1151, 1152, 1155, 1170, 1176, 

1183, 1192, 1199; anklet, 1193 
Bradley, Bruce A., 12, 68, 385, 541, 556, 603, 662, 

676, 680, 1177, 1192 
Bradley, Zorro A., 153, 772, 823, 991, 1016, 1024, 

1079 
Bradley, Zorro A., and William Logan, 1 
Brand, Donald D., 1121, 1123 
Brand, Donald D., Florence M. Hawley, Frank C. 

Hibben, Donovan Senter, et al., 763, 772, 792, 

1078, 1150 
Brandt, Elizabeth A., 214 
Brazos Uplift, 988, 991 
Bretemitz, Cory D., 12 
Bretemitz, Cory Dale, David E. Doyel, and Michael 

P. Marshall, 1184 
Bretemitz, David A., 32, 119, 135, 216, 
Bretemitz, David A., Arthur H. Rohn, and Elizabeth 



A. Morris, 41, 42, 127, 205, 226, 254, 258, 
365, 370, 377, 392, 416 

Brew, J. O., 949 

Brimhall Black-on-White, 313, 402, 411 

Brisbin, Joel, 153, 1177 

Brody, J. J., 155, 208 

Broken Flute Cave, 1152 

Broken Roof Cave, 1140 

Bronitsky, Gordon, and Robert Hamer, 162 

Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1130, 1162 

brown minerals, 1122, 1140, 1141 

brownwares, defining, 38, 165, 436-43; effigy in, 
70; import chronology and, 135. See also 
Polished Tan Gray 

Brugge, David M., 665, 679 

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., 208 

Bubemyre, Trixi, and Barbara J. Mills, 77, 114, 
117, 210 

Bullard, William R., Jr., 1143, 1149, 1151 

Bui lard, William R., Jr., and Francis E. Cassidy, 
1152 

Bullen, Ripley P., 1079 

Bureau of Land Management, 9 

burials, comparisons of, (generally), 1084, 1149, 
1153, 1155, 1165, 1176, 1206, with ornaments, 
1141, 1152, 1176, 1183, 1184, 1191, 1192-93, 
1198-99, inpithouses, 1141, 1142; pitchers in, 
68; potters revealed by, 155, 156; projectile 
points in, 603, 675, and other chipped stone, 
685, 694 

Burnham Black-on-White, 286, 313, 402, 411 

buttons, 1121, 1163, 1176, 1191 

cacastas, 164 

cactus spine drills, 1163 

calcite, beads of, 1120, 1147, 1153, 1162, 1177, 

1199; calcite crystal, 1123, 1143, 1177; calcite 

spar, 1177 
Cameron, Catherine M., 12, 119, 149, 205, 208, 

531, 545, 561, 573, 741, 997, 1006, 1130, 

1162 
Cameron, Catherine M., and Robert Lee Sappington, 

9, 541, 628, 1206 
Cameron Polychrome, 434 
cane tube beads, 1139 
cannel coal, 1121 

Canyon de Chelly, 127, 1152, 1155 
Captain Tom Corrugated, 235 
canteen, 58, 69 
carbon paint, bowls with, 49; imports with, 123-32, 



1240 Chaco Artifacts 



and import chronology for, 135, 137, and shifts 
to, 205, 206; production areas for, 153, 155, 
and tempering materials, 96, 107, 109; types 
defined for, 365-415, and those similar to 
mineral-painted wares, 262-334 passim 

carbonaceous shale, 1121 

carbon-fourteen dates/radiocarbon dating, 1131, 
1139, 1150 

Carlson, Roy L., 42, 216, 416, 434, 435, 1184 

Carnegie Institution, 73 

Carter, George F., 1014 

Casa Rinconada, 3, 97, 98, 1123, 1151 

Casa Sombreada, 1192 

Casamero Ruin, 149, 1184 

Casas Grandes, 679, 953 

Cattanach, George S., 49, 68, 245, 385, 392, 1017, 
1085 

Cebolleta Mineral-on-White, 340 

ceramics, 9-11, 17; consumption of, 214, 602; 
depositional record for, 22, 72-73; identity and, 
49, 68, 155-56, 206, 209-11. See also 
attributes and types separately 

Cerithidaea, 1191 

Cerrillos Mining District, 1123, 1130, 1147, 1204 

Chaco Black-on-White, 68-70, 859; defining, 334-39 

Chaco Canyon, archeology in, 1-3, 659, 977, 997; as 
a garden spot, 161, and central place, 531, 596, 
605; ceramics peculiar to, 69, and seasonality, 
164; environment and subsistence in, 9, and 
corn varieties for, 1024, 1065, and landscape 
around, 610, 1123; greatest building activity in, 
44, and terminal period for, 71; related 
communities outside of, 9, and Navajo use of, 
679; social changes in, 205-6, 1206 

Chaco Center, the, 660 

Chaco Cibola Group, 325 

Chaco Corrugated, 245, 250, 254 

Chaco Culture National Historical Park, 119, 660, 
977 

Chaco East Community, 1163 

Chaco McElmo Black-on-White, 68, 70, 109, 119, 
129, 298, 859; defining, 384-91 

Chaco Outlier Survey, 964. See also outliers 

Chaco Park. See Chaco Culture National Historical 
Park 

Chaco Phenomenon, the, 1, 4, 9, 73, 95, 119, 603, 
691, 967, 1207, 1230 

Chaco Project, the, database for, 1-9, 534, 661; 
excavations for, 3-6, 22, 531, 534, 1119, 1143, 
1168, 1229; geologist for, 703; history of 



reports for, 4, and research goals, 1, 531; time- 
space matrix for, 4, 534, 1157, and metates, 
1074 

Chaco River, 76, 163 

Chaco San Juan Black-on-White, 384 

Chaco Wash, 1077; clay from, 117; minerals from 
1122, 1151 

Chacra Member, 1121, 1122 

Chacra Mesa, 153, 162, 392, 934, 994, 1122 

chalcedonic sandstone temper, abundance of, 230; 
grayware attributes and, 187, (diameter) 177, 
(fillet) 177, (flare) 180, (surface) 200, and by 
site, 200 

chalcedonic sihcified wood (lithic codes 1140-1145), 
541, 556; cores of, 556, 643; formal tools of, 
561, 564; temporal pattern for, 545, 564, 580, 
and greathouses, 580; for bead making, 596, 
1162, 1207 

chalcedony, 625, 1142, 1177 

Chama echinata, 1162, 1170, 1207 

chamber pot, 68 

Chandler Gray, 95, 105 

Chapin Black-on-White, 127, 129, 262, 270, 365 

Chapin Gray, 218 

Chapman, Richard C, 541, 625, 679, 961, 1000, 
1006 

Chapman, Richard C, and Jeanne A. Schutt, 541, 
556 

chert, 541, 625, 626, 948, 967, 1123 

cherty sihcified wood (lithic codes 1112, 1113), 541; 
cores of, 556, 643, 652; temporal pattern for, 
545, 580, 581 

Chetro Ketl, 3, 44, 990; chipped stone at, 597, 694; 
ground stone at, 812, and metate bins, 1016, 
1044, 1053; offerings at, 1149, 1165; road- 
trade and, 1176 

Chicago, Field Museum, 1026 

Chimney Rock Pueblo, 2, 1183 

Chinle chert, 626 

Chinle Formation/Sandstone, 76, 89, 90, 112 

Chinle Wood, 626, 628 

chipped stone, 12, 536, 1228; artifact types in, 532, 
543, 550, 553, and tool groups, 561, 564, 573, 
581-89, 590, 592, 604, 659, 680, 698; 
consumption of, 597, 601, 695, as imports, 
1222-23; cortex for, 543, 556, 557; flaking 
technology for, 541, and chipping episodes, 
553, 596; material types of, 532, 539-50, 597, 
610, 622-29, 643-49, 691, and access, 553, 
602, and time-space variability, 545-50, 550, 



Index 1241 



553-57, 649-58, 658, 661, 665, 685, 687, 691- 
95, and tool types, 543, 550, 556, 561-64, 564- 
74, 577-81, 582, 585, 596; tool kits for, 1226, 
and edge damage, 679, 685, 687, 699 

chopper, 949, 956, 732-72 passim 

Choromytilus palliopunctatus. 1166 

Christenson, Andrew L., 156 

chronology, Chaco Project, 4-9, 1157, and the Pecos 
System, 661; mentioned, for ceramics, 10, 32, 
49, 85, 119, 596, 602, chipped stone, 534, 545, 
545-50, 557, 564, 577, 582, 596, ground stone, 
716, 733, 819, 823, 830, 845, 847, (axes and 
mauls) 980, 988-92, (hammerstones) 964-67, 
(manos) 1003, 1008, (metates), 1023, 1044, 
ornaments, 1130, 1131-1204 

chrysocolla, 1184, (pendant) 1199, (piece) 1199 

Church, F. S., and J. T. Hack, 626 

Chuska area, ceramics and the, 32, 37, 41, 70, 75, 
132, 135, 139, 143, 149, 210 

Chuska Black-on-White, 313, 334; defining, 402-5 

Chuska Carbon-on-White, 210; defining, 406-10; 
with Red Mesa design, 411-15 

Chuska gray paste, 113 

Chuska Grayware, 85, 182, 207, 210 

Chuska Mineral-paint wares, 340 

Chuska Mountains, ceramic resources from the, 76- 
77, 90, 101, 106, 127; chipped stone and the, 
597, 601, 604, 626 

Chuska Redwares, 42, 110, 135 

Chuska Sandstone, 76, 94 

Chuska Valley, 73, 138, 163; ceramics and the, 103, 
110, 113, 118, 127, 149, 155, 156, 161-63, 
165, 205, 385 

Chuskan Whiteware, 41, 105, 107, 109; earliest, 262 

Cibola Carbon ware, 377, 384 

Cibola Carbon-on-White, 129 

Cibola Corrugated, 254 

Cibola Grayware, 117 

Cibola Series Pottery, 77 

Cibola Whiteware, 109, 117 

Cibola Whiteware Conference, 32 

Ciolik-Torrello, R., 1087 

Citadel Polychrome, 434 

clam shell, 1150, 1166 

clapboarding, 200, 230 

Classic Bonito Phase, 602, 1149, 1166-68 

clay, 77, 111-18, 132, 152-53, 156, 162, 182, 416; 
for ornaments, 1121-22, and a figurine, 1192; 
samples of, 471-509; thermal shock resistance 
of, 239; workability tests for, 115. See also 



firing clay; paste; temper 
claystone, axe of, 980; ornaments of, 1177, 1184, 

1191, 1199 
Cliff House Formation/Sandstone, 610, 622; for clay 

115, 117, 473, 498, 500, 502; ground stone 

from, 703, 980, 988-91, 999 
coal and ceramics, 163 
Coal Gasification Project, 32 
cobbles, as tool source, 845, 854, 1223; axes and 

mauls of, 980, 989, 991, 993; hammerstones 

of, 953, 961, 964-67; polishing stones of, 812, 

830 
Cochiti Pueblo, 1014 
coiling, 152; coil width, 165, 200, 205 
Colorado, 127,698, 1001, 1121, 1123, 1130, 1141, 

1142, 1147, 1153, 1176, 1177, 1183 
Colton, Harold S., 119, 162, 218, 313, 416, 434, 

435 
Colton, Harold S., and Lyndon L. Hargrave, 32, 41, 

135, 216, 230, 365 
Commanche Springs, 509 
concretions, 795, 796, 1123 
Condon, Glen S., 156 

consumption, 214, 601-2, 1006, 1149, 1229-30 
Continental Divide, 95 
Conussp., 1142, 1153, 1162, 1199 
Cook, Scott, and Martin Diskin, 212 
Coolidge Corrugated, 239, 245 
copper, 1155, 1162, 1166, 1184, 1191, 1199 
Corbett, John M., 531 
Cordell, Linda, 67, 206, 213 
cores, 532, 556-57, 596, 603, 643, 698 
combreaker abrader, 755 
corrugated ware, unidentified, 258-61 
corrugations, bowls with, 49; fingerprints in, 156; 

functions of pottery and, 239; grayware 

exteriors with, 52 
cortex, 629, 643, 644, 948 
Cortez Black-on-White, 278, 286, 340, 411 
Cosgrove, H. S., and C. B. Cosgrove, 694 
Costin, Cathy L., and Melissa B. Hagstrum, 207 
costumbre, 211-14 
cradleboard, 1193, 1198 
craft specialization, 164, 173, 181, 201, 205-14, 

603, 1152, 1162, 1176, 1205, 1227 
Craig, L. C, C. N. Holmes, and R. A. Cadigan, 90 
Crawford site, 1151-52 
cremations, 69 

Crotty, Helen K., 155, 1163, 1176 
Crownpoint, New Mexico, 980, 1152 



1242 Chaco Artifacts 



Crozier Black-on-White, 262, 270, 365, 370 

Crown, Patricia, and W. James Judge, 1, 1230 

Crumbled House Black-on-White, 392 

crystal for beads, 1 192. See also quartz crystal 

Cully, Anne C, 1224 

Cully, Anne C, Marcia L. Donaldson, Mollie S. 

Toll, and Klara B. Kelley, 161 
cups, 68 

Cushing, F. H., 967 
Cutler, Hugh, 1024, 1065 
cylindar beads, 1177, 1183, 1193 
cylindar jars, 58, 69, 71 

Daifuku, Hiroshi, 435 

Dalrymple, G. B., A. Cox, R. R. Doell, and C. S. 

Gromme, 628 
Dane, C. H., and G. O. Bachman, 76, 77, 90, 101, 

104, 115 
Danson, Edward B., 209 
Darling, Andrew, 212 
dart-point preforms, 685 
David, Nicholas, 22 

Davis, Emma Lou, and John Winkler, 1 199 
Deadman's Black-on-Red, 416, 435 
Dean, Jeffrey S., 1226 
debitage, 550, 553, 561, 589 
decoration, ceramic, 38; ground stone, 1081; 

ornament, 1147; shield, 1198 
Degenerate Transitional Black-on-White, 298, 306 
Desert Tradition, 1204 
Desolation Canyon, Utah, 1141 
Developmental Pueblo, 1152 
Developmental Pueblo Neckbanded, 235 
Diaz, May N., 161, 211-12 
DiPeso, Charles C, 953, 1166 
dipper wear, 50 

disks, 1147, 1150, 1153, 1155, 1176, 1192, 1198 
Dittert, Alfred E., and Fred Plog, 216 
Dodd, Walter A., 947 
Dodge, Andrea, 1122 

Dogoszhi Black-on-White, 313, 377, 402, 406 
Dogoszhi Style, 46-47 
Dohm, Karne, and Melissa Gould, 1 153 
dolomite, 1139 

Dolores Area, 49, 205, 662, 1153 
Dolores Corrugated, 250 
Dominguez Ruin, Colorado, 1084, 1176 
Donselaar, M. E., 610 
Dove Creek, Colorado, 205 
Doyel, David E., 1, 1230 



Doyel, David E., and Stephen H. Lekson, 1230, 

1231 
drills, 564, 573, 592, 659, 661, 687-91, 698, 1142, 

1153; for jewelry, 1162, 1204, 1207, 1227; 

micro-drills, 573 
Drager, Dwight L., 1231 
Drolet Black-on-White, 278 
duck pot, 58, 69 
DuPontCave, Utah, 1141 
DuShane, Helen, 1120 
Dutton, Bertha P., 763, 792, 810, 1077 

ear ornament, 1140 

Early Red Mesa Black-on-White, 230; defining, 278- 
85 

ecology, ceramic, 161-64 

ecology, chipped stone, 541 

Eddy, Frank W., 69, 127, 1155, 1183-84 

Eddy, Frank W., and Beth L. Dickey, 1142 

edge-abrader, 753; broken-edge polisher, 830 

effigies, ceramic, 69, 70; clay figurine, 1 192; human 
figure on ceramic, 263, in pictograph, 1138, on 
ornaments, 1151, 1192; zoomorphic, 1152-53, 
1155, 1163, 1166, 1170, 1176, 1191-92 

Eidenbach, Peter L., 1006 

El Rito site, 151 

Eleventh Hour Site, 3, 12; ceramics and, 68, 70, 87, 
101, 132, 137, 141, 147, 196, 200, 254, 392; 
chipped stone and, 545, 585; ground stone and, 
755, 851, 882, 887, 890, 922, 934, and 
metates, 1016, 1026, 1030, 1034, 1037, 1040, 
1045, 1053, 1056, 1060, 1068, 1104; 
ornaments and, 1168, 1170, 1191 

Ellis, Florence Hawley, 32, 213, 1191 

Ellwood, Priscilla B., and Douglas R. Parker, 70 

Elyea, Janette, Emily K. Abbink, and Peter N. 
Eschman, 1139 

ENRON (Transwestern Pipeline Project), 68, 71, 105 

Ephedra. 1141 

Episcvnia medialis, 1162, 1170 

Errickson, Mary P., 49, 218 

Escalante Ruin/Site, Colorado, 1084, 1176 

Escavada Black-on-White, 144, 298, 325; defining, 
306-12 

Escavada Wash, 625, 1122, 1184 

ethnographic comparisons, 69, 161, 208, 213-14, 
819, 967, 1000, 1013, 1014, 1055, 1163, 1191 

eversion of rims, 166, 169, 177 

exchange/trade, 153, 163, 215, 550, 561, 597, 601, 
1147, 1155, 1170, 1205 



Index 1243 



exotic material, defining, 12, 597 
Exotic Brownware, defining, 441-43 
Exotic Mineral-on- White, defining, 340-51 
Exuberant Corrugated, 239 

facilities. See work areas 

Fajada Butte, 117, 471, 472, 475-77, 479, 856, 1122 

Fajada Wash, 472, 481, 482 

Farmington Sandstone, 622 

Farrel, Steve, 676 

faunal remains, 1230, 1231 

Feathers, James K., 1138 

feathers as ornaments, 1140 

Fehr, Russell T., Klara B. Kelley, Linda Popelish, 

and Laurie Warner, 1152 
felsite, 1123, 1176 

Fenenga, Franklin, and Fred Wendorf, 1 142 
files. See lapidary stones 
finger-ports on a metate, 1053 
fingerprints on ceramics, 156 
firepits, isolated, 153 
firing clay, 152-56 passim; fuel for, 162-63, 206; 

tests on, 103, 182, and refiring tests, 114-18, 

127-28, 436; thermal shock and, 239; 

vitrification and, 114, 117, 334, or sintering, 

1 14; mention of reducing cracks, 49 
Flagstaff Black-on-White, 377 
flaking technology, 541, 674, 680, 685, 698-99, 947, 

966-67 flint knapping tool, 961, 966-67 
flooring, 153, 1121, 1122 
food preparation, ceramic vessel form and, 70, 211; 

cornbreaker abrader and, 755; efficiency in, 

1023-24, 1074, 1101-3; grinding stroke for, 

1003, 1006, 1008, 1230; tool kits for, 1224-28 

passim 
Ford, Dabney, 384 
Ford, J. A., 949 
Forestdale redware, 435 
Forestdale Smudged, 135; defining, 436 
Forestdale/Woodruff Series, 135 
formal tools, Anasazi assemblages of, 541. See also 

flaking technology; tools 
fossils, 1123, 1153, 1199 
Foster, George, 22, 206, 212 
Fowler, Andrew P., John R. Stein, and Roger 

Any on, 9 
Franklin, Hayward, 70, 102, 114, 117, 129, 377, 

1182 
Franklin, Hayward H., and Dabney Ford, 384 
Fried, Morton H., 213 



Frisbie, Theodore R., 1155, 1163, 1207 

Frison, G. C, 954 

Fruitland Formation, 77, 84, 622, 625 

Fry, Robert E., 155 

fugitive red, 49, 52, 61-62, 175, 218, (sooting on) 

218, 235, 262, 365, 1226 
Fuller, Steven L., 153 

galena, 1192, 1193 

Gallegos Wash, 1139 

Gallo Canyon, clay from, 472, 494, 496, 501 

Gallo Cliff Dwelling, 1017, 1192 

Gallo Wash, 625, 1192 

Gallup, New Mexico, 1 143 

Gallup Black-on-White, defining, 313-24, 325, 402; 

chronology defined by, 596, 602; hachure on, 

46, 47, 70, 166, 286, 298; temper in, 107, 144; 

times for, 44, 119, 121, 147, and ground stone, 

859 
Gallup Phase, 119, 147, 596, 602, 603, 859, 1006, 

1229 
Gallup Formation/Sandstone, 77, 89, 175 
gaming pieces, 1142, 1147, 1153, 1177, 1192 
Garcia, Mary Lewis, 153 

Gardner, G. N., F. Goff, and M. A. Rogers, 628 
Gardner, J. N., and F. Goff, 628 
garnet, 1150 

Garrett, Elizabeth M., 105, 110, 999 
Garrett, Elizabeth M., and H. H. Franklin, 102, 103, 

109, 114, 117 
Gaumer, Alfred E., 1114, 1157 
Gauthier, Rory P., 98 
Gillespie, William B., 206, 580, 964, 1139, 1162, 

1227 
gilsonite, 1121, 1183 
Gladwin, Harold S., 270, 1152 
Glascock, M. D., and H. Neff, 628 
glaze black, 38 
Glvcvmeris. bracelets of, 1139, 1147, 1151, 1176, 

1192; effigy in, 1191; mentioned use of, 1143, 

1153, 1184 
gneiss, 1123 
Goddard, E. N., 626 
goethite, 1166 
Goetze, Christine E., and Barbara J. Mills, 37, 47, 

216, 230, 245, 313, 370, 416 
Goff, F., et al., 628 
gourd jar, 58, 69, 71 
gourd pendant, 1139 
grain size in temper, 78-79, 84-90, 110, 114, 138, 



1244 Chaco Artifacts 



166 

Gran Quivira, 694 

granite, 1123 

Grants, New Mexico, 628 

Grasshopper Pueblo, 1087 

gravel terrace chert, 541. See also high surface chert 

Gray Hills Banded, 235 

gray minerals for ornaments, 1122, 1141, 1142, 
1155, 1176, 1192 

graywares, defining, 37, 218-61, as group symbols, 
210-11; firing tests for, 182, 204; forms of, 50, 
52, 70, 218, and changes, 70-71, 195, 201, 
205, and volume, 73, 202; functions for, 175, 
210-11, 239; surface treatments for, 196-202, 
449-52; temper in, 41, 42, 84-85, 89, 96-99, 
105, 107, 113, 118, as defining imports, 132- 
49, and production areas, 152, 164-80, and 
simple variability, 173; variability summary for, 
184-87, 193-202 

Great Basin, 1014 

Great Bend greathouse, 149 

greathouses, 4, 9, 531; as centers, 164, 553, 1230; 
ceramics at, 138, 144, 149, 156; metates at, 
1080-82; Pueblo IV-V, 694 

greathouse-small house comparisons, chipped stone 
material for, 553, 577, 580-81, 585, 602, 652, 
and tool distribution, 573, 991, 1006, 1037, 
1040, 1076; ornaments for, 1166, 1176, 1183, 
1184; review of, 1224 

Green, M. E., and C. T. Pierson, 626 

green minerals, 1122, (bead) 1139, (disk) 1139, 
(bead) 1141, (pendant) 1141, 1142, 1155; 
greenstone ornaments, 1141, 1177, 1193, 1198 

greenstone, axes of, 988-91; ornaments of, 1141, 
1177, 1193, 1198 

grinding slabs, 758 

grist basin, 1082 

grooved stone artifacts, 801-12, 977, 990, 992-93 

Gross, G. Timothy, 1153 

ground stone, 12, 701, 1222; bell sound from, 772; 
cache of, 980; confusion of types of, 1017; 
manos, 998; metates, 1027; other material 
types, 707, 856, 890, 934; sandstone flake tool, 
757; staining on, 780, 796, 887, 1142 

Guadalupe Ruin, 2, 95, 157, 1084, 1184, 1199 

Guasave, Sinaloa (Mexico), 1130, 1162 

Guatemala, 155, 161, 163, 211 

Guernsey, Samuel J., 1140 

Guernsey, Samuel J., and Alfred Vincent Kidder, 
1138, 1140, 1157, 1204, 1229 



Gulf of California, 1120, 1166, 1170, 1203 
Gumerman, George J., Deborah Westfall, and Carol 

S. Weed, 127 
Gunderson, James N., 1122 
gypsite, 1138 
gypsum, 1123, 1177, (pendant) 1177, 1184 

hachure, 42-49, 70, 153, 166, 205, 286, 313, 334, 

377, 402, 416, 459-60, 464-65, 466 
Hackman, R. J., and A. B. Olson, 626 
hafting, 665, 673, 685, 687, 691, 977, 990 
Hagstrum, Melissa B., 155, 209 
Half House, 1016, 1077, 1151 
Halfway House, 151 

Haliotus , 1140, 1142, 1150, 1153, 1176, 1191 
Hall, Stephen S., 162 
Hallasi, Judith Ann, 1176 
Halymenites major , 1123 
hammers, hafted, 990 
hammerstones, 947-72, 1222; preparing metates 

with, 1014, 1041, 1047, 1077, 1079-86; wear 

on, 949, 962 
hand abraders, 707; hand-type abrader, 716 
handles, 63-69, 466-67 
Harbottle, Garman, and Phil C. Weigand, 1130, 

1162 
Hard, Robert Jarrott, 1015 
Harris, Marvin, 209 
Harris, Richard J., 185, 193, 197 
Haury, Emil W., 435, 436, 947, 953, 961, 993, 

1140, 1163, 1176, 1227 
Hawikuh, 1014, 1163 
Hawley, Florence M., 74, 306, 416 
Hay Hollow Valley, Arizona, 967 
Hayes, Alden C, 17, 22, 32, 705, 707, 763, 772, 

810, 823, 830, 934, 1023, 1131, 1143, 1157, 

1231 
Hayes, Alden C, David M. Brugge, and W. James 

Judge, 1 
Hayes, Alden C, and James A. Lancaster, 32, 50, 

564, 953, 962, 1017, 1020, 1086 
Hayes, Alden C, and Thomas C. Windes, 1168 
Heacock, Laura A., 153 
Heckert, A. B., and S. G. Lucas, 628 
Hegmon, Michelle, Winston Hurst, and James K. 

Allison, 42, 132, 164, 207 
heirlooming, 121, 141, 205 
hematite, ornaments of, 1140, 1176, 1177, 1193, 

1199; pigment of, 1138, 1142, 1176, 1182, 

1193 



Index 1245 



Henderson, Ruth, 1139 

Hewett, Edgar L., 1149 

high surface chert, (lithic codes 1050-1055), 541, 

545, 556, 561, 564, 622, 643 
Hill, James, 1015 

Hill, James N., and Robert K. Evans, 155, 165 
hishi, 1155 
Hodge, F. W., 1163 
Hogan, Patrick, 163, 1153 
Hohokam, the, 993, 1147, 1228 
Holbrook Black-on-White, 377 
Hooten, Jean, 1026 
Hopi area, 156, 162, 163, 208, 676, 1000, 1013, 

1016, 1047 
horn and antler ornaments, 1139, 1147, 1192 
hornblende in temper, 100-101, 340; homblende- 

latite, 110 
horticulture, 161; corn varieties for, 1024-25, 1065, 

1075, 1083 
Hosta Butte, 1176 
Hosta Butte Phase, 990, 991 
household, consumption by, 601, 602, 1006, 1229- 

30, 1231 
Hovenweep, 101 
Hubbard Site, 1199 
Hudson, Dee T., 994 
Huerfano Butte, 1176 
human figures, in clay, 1192; on ceramics, 263; 

ornaments of, 1151, 1192; pictographs with, 

1138 
Hunter Corrugated, 250, 254 
Hurst, J., 1142 
Hurst, Winston, 95 
Huse, Hannah, 49, 155, 156 
Hyde Exploring Expedition, 1080 

Ida Jean Ruin, 1177 

Ignacio sites, 1141, 1143, 1229 

igneous temper, 99-110, and refiring tests, 128; 
trachyte, 101-110; unidentified, 110 

Ignorance Hollow, 1078 

imports, ceramic, 103-5, 118-49, 416, 1221-22 
chipped stone, 550, 556, 561, 601, 604, 675 
defining exotic material, 12, 597; hammerstone 
967; metates to Mesa Verde as, 1086 
ornament, 1131, 1147, 1162, 1166, 1184 
review of, 1221-23, and status, 1230 
transporting ceramic, 164, and the corridor 
effect, 149-50, and road evidence for, 49, 141, 
150-51, 164 



Indian Creek, 103, 150 

informal tools, 541 

inlay, 1121, 1140, 1147, 1152, 1168, 1170, 1176, 

1182, 1183, 1192, 1199 
Inoceramus barabini. 1123 
Intel-mountain Cultural Resource Center, 659 
iron oxide, temper sandstone with, 90 
Irwin-Williams, Cynthia, and Phillip H. Shelley, 1, 

4, 1177, 1182, 1207 

Jackson's staircase, 473, 498, 500 

Jacobson, Lou Ann, 597, 922, 1191 

jars, 50, 52, 73, 74, 135, 164, 175, 181, 196 

jasper, 1143 

Jay point, 661, 1131 

Jeancon, J. A., and Frank H. H. Roberts, 1183-84 

Jelinek, Arthur J., 662, 951, 954 

Jemez Mountains, 603, 628-29 

Jernigan, E. Wesley, 286, 313, 334, 1139-43, 1147, 
1163, 1204, 1228 

jet, 1121, 1153, 1162, 1166, 1176, 1177, 1192, 1199 

Judd, Neil M., 50, 68, 118, 161, 564, 660, 685, 
701, 705, 733, 755, 758, 772, 792, 796, 801, 
808, 810, 823, 829, 1120, 1149-51, 1163-68, 
1206-7; mentioned, 65, 68, 70, 384, 385, 603, 
665, 676, 680, 780, 947, 953, 962, 991, 994, 
1013, 1014, 1018, 1020, 1023, 1027, 1034, 
1040, 1042, 1045, 1053, 1078, 1080-82, 1227, 
1230 

Judge, W. James, 1, 4, 37, 161, 163, 532, 596, 947, 
1206, 1207, 1229 

Judge, W. James, and John D. Schelberg, 9 

Judge, W. James, H. Wolcott Toll, William B. 
Gillespie, and Stephen H. Lekson, 1024 

Juniperus monosperma. 1142 

Kana'a Black-on-White, 270, 278, 370 

Kana'a Gray, 230, 235 

Kawaika-a site, 156 

Kayenta area, 127, 155, 1140, 1229 

Keen, A. Myra, 1120, 1123 

Kelley, J. Charles, and Ellen Abbott Kelley, 1207 

Kelley, Vincent C, 101 

Kelly, T. E., 90, 94 

Kemrer, Meade, Alan Reed, Penelope Whitten, and 

Marilyn Swift, 1199 
Kiatuthlanna Black-on-White, 278, 370, 411 
kicked up base, 49 
Kidder, Alfred Vincent, 541, 685, 694, 953, 962, 

977, 993, 1157 



1246 Chaco Artifacts 



Kidder, Alfred Vincent, and Samuel J. Guernsey, 

1140, 1157, 1204, 1229 
kilns, 155-56 
Kin Bineola, 2, 150, 661 
Kin Kletso, 3, 334, 1084; ceramics at, 384; chipped 

stone at, 660, 694; grooved tools at, 991; 

ground stone at, 823; milling tools at, 1053, 

1080; obsidian at, 547; ornaments at, 1170, 

1203 
Kin Klizhin, 2, 117, 150, 474, 489, 490, 491, 493, 

503 
Kin Nahasbas, 1, 3, 991, 1162, 1163 
KinNizhoni, 151, 1184 
KinTl'iish, 1153 
Kin Ya'a, 2, 151 
Kinboko Cave, 1 140 
Kincaid, Chris, 9 
Kincaid, Chris, John R. Stein, and Daisy F. Levine, 

164 
Kintigh, Keith W., 1, 37 
Kirkpatrick, David T., 1139 
Kirtland Shale, 622, 625, 1121, 1123 
kivajar, 392 
kivas, grooved stone in, 992; ground stone in, 772, 

808, 856, 909, 1037; knife cache in, 685; shell 

and minerals in, 1149, 1165 
Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Paul Reiter, 416, 763, 796, 

829, 1078, 1151 
Kluckhohn, Clyde, et al., 953 
knives, 564, 573, 592, 659, 661, 680-87, 691; quartz 

knife, 1193 
Knowles, F. H. S., 966, 967 
Kramer, Carol, 155, 209 
kula ring, 1207 

Kushner, H. W., and G. DeMaio, 193 
Kutz Canyon, 1184 
Kvamme, Kenneth, Miriam T. Stark, and William A. 

Longacre, 173 
Kwahe'e Black-on-White, 325 

La Plata Area/District, 561, 772, 796, 1153 
La Plata Black-on-White, 262, 270, 365 
La Plata Highway Project, 1182 
La Plata River/Valley, 127, 132, 153, 1182 
Laboratory of Anthropology, 539; LA 2507 
ornament, 1 152; LA 2605 ornament, 1 142; LA 
4169 ornament, 1155; LA 47499 temper, 95; 
LA 50364 ornament, 1184 
ladles, 49, 50, 58, 71, 73, 74, 406 
Laevicardium sp.. 1139, 1176, 1184 



Lagasse, Peter F., William B. Gillespie, and Kenneth 

G. Eggert, 162 
Laguna, New Mexico, 90 
Laguna chert, 561 
Lake Valley greathouse, 149 
Lancaster, James W., 998, 999 
Lancaster, James W., and Jean M. Pinkley, 1153 
land snails, 1120, 1141 
Lang, Dick, 95 

Lange, Charles H., 1014, 1025, 1047, 1226 
lapidary stones, 596, 733, 763, 773, 854, 882, 909, 

914, 921, 934, 1227 
lapstones, 763, 772, 780 
Lasker, H., 37 

Late Pueblo II-Early Pueblo III, 1157 
leather, disks of, 1139; leather under metates, 1053 
LeBlanc, Steven A., 208, 226 
LeFree, Betty, 819 
Lekson, Stephen H., 9, 12, 44, 205, 208, 214, 532, 

564, 573, 601, 661, 662, 665, 694, 999, 1162, 

1176, 1224, 1230, 1231 
LeMoc Shelter, 1153 
LeTourneau, P. D., 626 
Levi site, 1139 

Levine, Daisy F., and Linda J. Goodman, 1130 
Levine, Daisy F., Linda J. Goodman, and Timothy 

D. Maxwell, 1130 
Lewis Shale, 610, 1123; clay from, 115, 117, 473, 

497; ornament minerals from, 1121, 1122 
Leyit Kin, 1042, 1077 
lignite, 1121; beads of, 1122, 1140, 1142, 1147, 

1153, 1198; button of, 1191; disk of, 1176; ear 

ornaments of, 1140; effigy in, 1191; pendants 

of, 1142, 1153, 1176, 1191, 1198; mentions of, 

1151, 1162, 1166, 1193 
lignitized wood, 1123 
limestone for ornaments, 1140, 1152, 1176, 1177, 

1199 
limonite, 1150, 1176; effigy in, 1151; pendant in, 

1138; pigment of, 1138 
Lindenmeier site, 1139 
Lino Black-on-Gray, 262, 365 
Lino Fugitive Red, 175, 218, 223-25 
Lino Gray, 52, 65, 68-70, 90, 180, 184, 201, 218- 

22, and variables for, 175; in situ seed jar with 

clay and awl, 914 
Lino Red, 135 

Lino Smudged, 135, 165, 436 
Lister, Robert H., 1085 
Lister, Robert H., and Florence C. Lister, 1, 69, 73, 



Index 1247 



156 

lithic 1014, description and uses for, 561, 626, 634, 

638 
lithic 1020, description and uses for, 550, 626, 634, 

638 
lithic 1022, description and uses for, 550, 561, 626, 

638 
lithic 1040, description and uses for, 550, 561, 626, 

638 
lithic 1110, hammerstones of, 966-67 
lithic 1112, hammerstones of, 967 
lithic 1430, tools of, 561, 626, 639 
lithic 2201, uses for, 550, 626, 639 
lithic 2205, description and uses for, 550, 561, 626, 

639 
Little Colorado Paste, 113 
Little Colorado Whitewares, 143, 377 
Little Water Site, 156 
Lizard House, 3, 1079 
Lockman-Balk, Christina, 90 
Lockett, H. C, and L. L. Hargrave, 1141 
London, Gloria Anne, 155, 164 
Long House, Mesa Verde, 1017, 1085 
Longacre, W. A., 951 
Longacre, William A., Kenneth L. Kvamme, and 

Masashi Kobayashi, 155, 164, 173, 202 
Loose, Richard W., 74, 97, 101, 856, 1017, 1143, 

1157 
Loose, Richard W., and Thomas R. Lyons, 596 
Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, 

1120 
Los Lunas Smudged, 436 
Los Pinos Phase, 1142 
Love, David W., 12, 539, 622, 625, 1120 
Love, David W., and Mary L. Gillam, 622 
Love, David W., S. G. Wells, J. L. Betancourt, S. 

A. Hall, and P. F. Lagasse, 96 
Lowry Ruin, Colorado, 1176 
Lucas, S. G., 628 
Lucius, William A., 95, 127 
Lucius, William A., and David A. Breternitz, 132 
Lucius, William A., and Dean Wilson, 114 
Luhrs, Dorothy L., 991 

macaw, 1166 
Maghreb, the, 207 

malachite, ornaments of, 1131, 1147, 1177, and 
mentions, 1152, 1184, 1199; pigment of, 1142 
Malik, S. C, 967 
Mallouf, Robert, 679 



Mancos Black-on-White, 298, 306, 313, 325, 334, 

340, 402; an ornament of, 1176 
Mancos Corrugated, 239, 245 
Mancos Gray, 235, 239 
Mancos Shale, 980 
manjak, 1121 
mano-like abrader, 733 
manos, 997, 1222; reused, 758, 841, 847, 887; time 

and shape of, 1023, 1028, 1048; a tool for 

sharpening, 961 
Marcia's Rincon, 890, 909, 914, 922, 1016, 1088 
Marshall, Michael P., 149 
Marshall, Michael P., John R. Stein, Richard Loose, 

and Judith Novotny, 9, 149, 156, 163, 164, 

1176, 1191 
Martin, P. S., and F. T. Plog, 964, 1013, 1015, 

1017, 1023 
Martin, Paul S., 1176 
Martinez, Ruben, 94 
Maruca, Mary, 1, 4 

Mathews, Thomas W., and Earl Neller, 1131 
Mathien, Frances Joan, 9, 12, 208, 573, 596, 922, 

1037, 1119-23, 1131, 1150, 1157, 1162, 1165, 

1168, 1170, 1191, 1192, 1203, 1205, 1207, 

1222, 1223, 1227-31 
Mathien, Frances Joan, and Bart Olinger, 1 120, 1 162 
Mathien, Frances Joan, and Thomas C. Windes, 991, 

1162 
Matson, Frederick R., 161 
mauls, defining, 977, 991-92; grooving on, 980, 

993; materials for, 990-991, 993 
Maxon, James C, 1079 
Maxwell Museum, 73, 660 
McElmo Black-on-White, 377, 384; as ornaments, 

1176; holding ornaments, 1176 
McElmo Phase, 882, 991, 1084 
McGarry, Thomas E., 254 
McGregor, J., 1013 
McKenna, Peter J., 4, 17, 22, 32, 71, 75, 76, 153, 

177, 392, 436, 581, 927, 977, 989, 1143, 

1151, 1157, 1162, 1165, 1166, 1206, 1223, 

1226-28, 1231 
McKenna, Peter J., and H. Wolcott Toll, 32, 68, 70, 

95, 132, 147, 161, 165, 166, 191, 200, 201, 

286, 392 
McKenna, Peter J., and Marcia L. Truell, 1, 9 
McKenna, Peter J., and Thomas C. Windes, 153 
McNeil, Jimmy D., 1177, 1182, 1199, 1204 
mealing bins, 859, 1003, 1008, 1014, 1016, 1023, 

1052, 1053, 1077, 1079, 1080, 1082, 1084, 



1248 Chaco Artifacts 



1085-87, 1227-28 

medicine bundle, 679 

Medicine Gray, 239 

Melia azederach, 1140 

Menefee Formation, as a temper source, 77, 98; clay 
from the, 98, 115, 117, 472, 474, at Fajada 
Butte, 475-79, near Gallo Canyon, 494, 496, 
501, near Kin Kletzin, 489-91, 503, near Una 
Vida, 483, 485, 487; describing the, 610 

Mera, Harold C, 436, 441 

Mesa Fajada, 927 

Mesa Verde Area/Region, ceramics from the, 67, 
127, 132, 153, 205; chipped stone from the, 
694; grooved stone from the, 993; ground stone 
from the, 705, 810, 823, 830, and metates, 
1020, 1084-86; ornaments from the, 1153; 
relationship of Chaco Canyon to the, 1231 

Mesa Verde Black-on-White, 41, 49, 68, 99, 119, 
141, 147, 156, 384, 1176; defining, 392-401 

Mesa Verde Corrugated, 254 

Mesa Verde Formation/Sandstone Group, minerals 
for ornaments from the, 1121, 1122; temper 
source in the, 77, 89, 90 

Mesa Verde National Park, 153 

Mesa Verde Phase/occupation, 922, 1016, 1024, 
1025, 1082-84, 1131, 1176, 1177, 1183, 1184, 
1191-99, 1203-4, 1206 

Mesoamerica, 67, 69, 209, 211, 665 

metates, blanks for, 1042, 1045, 1051, 1083; 
confused for passive abraders, 772; shelf on, 
1018-20; slab, 1040, 1042, 1064, 1079, 1084, 
1086, and slab stroke, 1003; tool for 
sharpening, 961; trough manos, 999, 1001, 
1028; two-surface, 1040, 1080, 1081, 1085 

Mexico, 69, 1014, 1120, 1130, 1162, 1166, 1203 

mica, 1139; mica-muscovite, 1122, 1162 

micro-drills, 914, 921 

microscope for chipped stone analysis, 532, 543 

Miles, J., 1229 

milling areas. See manos; mealing bins; metates 

Mills, Barbara J., 68, 71, 119, 149, 210 

Mills, Barbara J., Andrea J. Carpenter, and William 
Grimm, 101-3, 119, 149 

Mills, Barbara J., and Patricia L. Crown, 152 

Mills, Barbara J., and Christine E. Goetze, 334, 402 

Mimbres area, 208, 691 

mineral painted ceramics, 43, 49, 127, 205, 262-364, 
and shift to carbon paint, 38, 137, 205-6, 127- 
29 

miniature ceramics, 68, 70 



Moccasin Gray, 230 

Mockingbird Canyon, 991, 1042, 1081-82 

Moenkopi Corrugated, 250, 254 

Mogollon Area/Region, 135, 165, 436, 441, 1087, 

1139, 1228 
Mogollon-Anasazi dicotomy, 1143 
molding, ceramic, 152 
Molenaar, C. M., 77 
Montezuma Valley, Colorado, 698 
Moore, Roger A., Jr., 675, 694 
Morris, Ann Axtell, 1152 
Morris, Earl H., 69, 73, 118, 153, 262, 392, 561, 

564, 662, 685, 687, 694, 772, 796, 999, 1001, 

1018, 1082, 1153, 1163, 1183, 1192-93, 1199, 

1206 
Morris, Earl H., and R. F. Burgh, 1141-43, 1157, 

1229 
Morris, Elizabeth A., 68, 127, 226, 1150, 1152, 

1153 
Morris Site, 153 
Morrison, Randy, 927 
Morrison Formation/Sandstone, 625; chipped stone 

from, 541, 545, 550, 553, 561, 597; clay 

sample from, 505; temper material from, 77, 

89, 90, 94-95; volcanics in, 95 
mortars, 792 
mosaic, shell and minerals for, 1140, 1143, 1147, 

1151, 1152, 1176, 1192, 1199. See also inlay 
Mount Taylor, 104 
Muddy Water Community, 1152 
Mug House, Mesa Verde, 707, 772, 834, 1086 
mugs, 68, 71, 392 
Muller, Jon, 155, 214 
Mummy Cave, 1152 
Mummy Lake Gray, 258 
Museum of New Mexico, 539, 1182 
mussel, freshwater, 1139, 1155 
Mytton, J. W., and G. B. Schneider, 610 

Narbona Pass, 103, 626 

Narrow Neckbanded, defining, 235-38; variables for, 
(orifice) 177, (fillet) 177, (flare) 180, 195, 196, 
(surface) 198, 200, and by site, 200 

Naschitti Black-on-White, 278, 286, 411 

Nash, Manning, 211, 213 

Nassarius, 1170, 1184, 1203 

National Geogaphic Society, 934 

National Park Service, 1, 659, 1231 

Nava Black-on-White, 377, 384, 385; defining, 406 

Navajo, the, 153, 679, 1131 



Index 1249 



Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, 1139 

Navajo period, 679, 1131 

Navajo Reservoir Area/District, 127, 1155 

Neck Corrugated, chronology for, 119; defining, 

239^4; variables for, (orifice) 177, (fillet) 177, 

(flare) 177, 180, 195, (surface) 197, 198, 200, 

and by site, 200, and in summary, 181-82, 187, 

188, 191 
neck-decorated grayware. See Narrow Neckbanded; 

Neck Corrugated 
necklaces, 1140; mineral, 1140, 1142, 1182, 1184; 

seed, 1141; snail shell, 1140; mentioned, 1152, 

1165, 1193 
Neff point, 676 

Neitzel, Jill E., and Ronald L. Bishop, 69, 70, 334 
Neller, Earl, 1184 
Nelson, F. W., 628 
Nelson, G. Charles, 1153 
Nelson, Margaret C, 543 
Nemetz, J. A., 1084, 1176 
Nesbitt, P. 436 
Nevada, 1123, 1130 

New Mexico Archaeological Council, 32 
New Mexico Museum of Natural History, 1 120 
Newcomb Black-on-White, 278, 286, 411; defining, 

406 
Newcomb Corrugated, 239 
Newcomb greathouse, 149, 156 
Nials, Fred, John Stein, and John Roney, 9 
Nicklin, Keith, 163, 212 
Nie, H. H., etal., 185, 193 
Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlai Hull, and Jean C. 

Jenkins, 705, 950 
Noble, David Grant, 9 
Nordby, Larry V., 1204 
Northrop, Stuart A., 1120, 1123, 1138 
Nusbaum, Jesse L., 1141 

Obelisk Gray, 175, 226. See also Polished Tan Gray 
obsidian, 9, 536, 541, 545-50, 553, 561, 564, 603, 

604, 628-29, 644, 679, 685, 691, 698, 699, 

1123, 1142, 1163 
ocher, ornaments of, 1184 
Ojo Alamo Formation/Sandstone, 76, 84, 89, 90, 

175, 622, 625, 845, 1123 
Oliva sp.. 1153, 1162, 1176 
Olivella sp.. 1139-43, 1147, 1152-53, 1155, 1176, 

1184, 1191-93, 1198-99, 1207; bead 

preparation on, 1140 
ollas, 22, 49, 52, 58, 65, 67, 71, 85, 1121, 1122 



Olson, Alan P., and William W. Wasley, 1152 

Onosmodium occidentale. 1140 

Oppelt, Norman T., 32, 47, 216 

orange minerals for ornaments, 1152, 1191 

orifice diameter for grayware, 166, 173, 173-77, 
180-81, 184 

orifice to rim distance for grayware, 168, 169, 173, 
180 

ornaments, 12, 1222, 1225; a cache of, 1153; 
crescent shaped, 1199; evidence for 
manufacture of, 934, 1204-5, 1227-29; keystone 
shaped, 1176, 1191. See also separately 

Ortiz, Alfonso, 1213 

O'Sullivan, R. B., and E. C. Beaumont, 76, 90, 104 

outliers, 45, 156, 1082-85, 1176-91, 1206 

oyster shell, 1192 

Pacific Coast, 1123, 1150, 1170, 1203 

paint, ceramic type by, 38-41, and boundary for, 
205; glaze, 38, and vitrified, 40, 114; materials 
and tools for, 152, 741, 748, 753, 792; paint 
stones, 1226, 1229 

Painted Cave, 1140 

Pajarito Plateau, 1015 

Paleo-Indians, 1014 

Paleolithic period, 1068 

palettes, 796, 799, 1122, 1142 

paste, 110-18,416. See also temper 

patojos (duck pot), 69 

Peach Springs, 150 

Peacock, David P. S., 155 

Peckham, Stewart, 49, 50, 52, 65, 68-70, 216, 250, 
278 

Peckham, Stewart, and John P. Wilson, 32, 41, 42, 
165, 262, 402, 406, 411, 416, 435 

Pecos Pueblo, 685, 694, 993, 1204 

Pecos Valley, 662 

Peet, Robert K., 37 

Pelecypoda, 1199 

Pena Black-on-White, 270, 278, 370 

Pefiasco Blanco, 3, 97, 887 

pendants, abalone, 1140; antler, 1192; bark, 1139; 
blanks for, 1149, 1162, 1168; bone, 1139; 
calcite, 1153; claystone, 1184; gilsonite, 1183; 
jasper, 1140; jet, 1176; lignite, 1142, 1176, 
1191, 1198; limestone, 1152, 1176; limonite, 
1138; mozaic, 1152, 1176, 1193; satin spar, 
1140; schist, 1140; selenite, 1166, 1183, 1191, 
1199; shale, 1152, 1155, 1176; shell, 1138, 
1140, 1150, 1152, 1163, 1176, 1177, 1199; 



1250 Chaco Artifacts 



sherd, 1176; slate, 1139; steatite, 1139; 
trachyte, 1176; turquoise, 1143, 1151-53, 1176, 
1177, 1183-84, 1191; various stone, 1153, 
1191-92, 1198-99; white marble/dolomite, 
1139; mentioned, 1140, 1147, 1170, 1176 

Pendergast, David M., 1166 

Pepper, George H., 161, 660, 685, 691, 695, 772, 
1016, 1020, 1078, 1080, 1149, 1168, 1176, 
1230 

perforators. See drills 

Peru, 161 

Petrified Forest, Arizona, 1152, 1155 

petrified wood, 622, 625, 636, 691, 1223-24; 
hammerstones of, 947, 948, 951, 961, 964-67; 
ornaments of, 1123, 1177 

petrographic analysis for ceramics, 75 

Phagan, Carl J., 1153 

Phagan, Carl J., and Thomas H. Hruby, 1153 

pichingas (duck pot), 69 

picrolite, 1140 

pictographs, 1138 

Pictured Cliffs Sandstone, 622 

Piedra Black-on-White, 270, 278, 370 

Piedra District, 1153, 1183-84 

Pielou, E. C, 37 

Pierre's Site/Community, 2, 149, 151 

pigment, minerals for, 1138, 1142, 1176, 1182, 
1193, and mentioned, 1151, 1153; in axe 
groove, 990; on metates, 1060, 1078, 1079, 
1081; pigment stones and tools, 741, 792, 1226 

Pilles, Peter J., Jr., 676 

Pine River, 1142 

pink minerals, 1141, 1142, 1152 

pins, 1140 

pipes, 70 

Pippin, Lonnie C, 1084, 1184, 1199 

pitchers, 49, 50, 58, 67, 68, 71, 73, 74, 384 

pithouses, 580-81; ornaments in, 1139, 1153, 1203; 
tools in situ for, 856, 988, 1053, 1077, and 
work area defined for, 1228 

Plain Red, defining, 435 

plaster, polishers for, 823 

plazas/ramadas, 580-82 

Plog, Mr., 118, 129, 165-66, 206, 209, 210, 213 

Plog, Fred T., 206, 967, 1013, 1015, 1017, 1023 

points, 659. See also arrow points; projectile points 

polish, ceramics with, 41, 49, 52, 117, 152, 175, and 

polishing stones for ceramics, 161, 851-54, 921, 
1182; metates with, 1051-53; ornaments with, 
1141, and polished stones as ornaments, 1193 



Polished BMIII-PI Carbon-on-White, defining, 370- 
76 

Polished BMIE-PI Mineral-on- White, defining, 270- 
77 

Polished Smudged, 110, 117, 119, 143, 164, 165, 
207; defining, 436-40 

Polished Tan Gray, 69, 218; defining, 226-29 

polishing stones, 812, 819, 823, 830; for ceramics, 
161, 851-54, 921, 1182 

Pollach, Lillian, 1122 

pollen, mealing bin, 1084 

Polychrome, 165, 434 

population, 163, 1231 

porcupine quills, 1162, 1207 

porphyrite, 1123 

Post, Stephen, 95 

Post, Stephen S., and Steven A. Lakatos, 153, 155 

pot covers/olla lids, 1121, 1122 

Powell, Shirley, and George J. Gumerman, 47, 216 

Powers, R. P., W. B. Gillespie, and S. H. Lekson, 
9, 149 

Powers, Robert P., 1183 

Powers, Robert P., William B. Gillespie, and 
Stephen H. Lekson, 597, 1176 

Prayer Rock District, 127, 1150, 1152, 1155 

Prehistoric Stone Implements from Northeastern 
Arizona. Woodbury, 977 

Prewitt, New Mexico, 105, 1184, 1191 

projectile points, 532, 561, 564, 573, 574, 590, 596, 
659, 882, 1131, 1182, 1193. See also arrow 
points 

proto Mesa Verde Black-on-White, 384 

Pueblo Alto, 2, 3, 4, 12, 44, 211, 977, 1230; 
ceramics from, 22, 49, 68, 69, 156, 161, 166, 
188, 191, 200-201, 211, 258, 313, 384, 602 
and temper variables for, 94, 96, 97, 103, 108, 
149, 150; clay near, 115, 473, 497; import 
chronology for, 135, 137, 139-47, 149; chipped 
stone from, 532, 553, 573, 580-82, 585, 589, 
590, 596, 601, 694, 695; ground stone from, 
792, 808, 812, 823, 845, 851, 856-82, 887, 
909, 922, 977, 989, 1006, 1017, 1024, 1037, 
1060, 1068; mealing bins at, 1053, 1055, and 
metates, 1026, 1042, 1045, 1055, 1104; metate 
matching for, 1017, 1089-90, and mentions of 
metates, 1030-66 passim, 1103; ornaments 
from, 1157, 1162, 1163, 1165, 1166, 1168, 
1176 

Pueblo Alto Trash Mound, 137, 139, 144, 149, 214, 
603, 604, 716 



Index 1251 



Pueblo Bonito, 2, 3, 44, 1230; ceramics peculiar to, 
69; ceramics from, 68, 70, 152, 156, 161; clay 
near, 473, 497, 498, 502; chipped stone from, 
564, 597, 603, 660, 661, 675, 676, 679, 685, 
691, 695, and knives, 685, 687, 691; ground 
stone from, 772, 796, 808, 812, 823, 991, 
1016, 1018, 1020, 1040, 1042, 1045, 1053, 
1080-82, 1103; ornaments from, 1149, 1150, 
1162, 1163, 1165, 1166, 1168, 1176, 1199, 
1206 

Pueblo Bonito Expedition, 934 

Pueblo del Arroyo, 3; ceramics from, 50, 156, 384; 
chipped stone from, 660, 685; ground stone 
from, 796, 823, 991, 1040, and metates, 1080; 
ornaments from, 1165, 1170, 1199 

Pueblo Pintado, 2, 1122 

Pueblo I, ceramics for, 49, 71, 153; chipped stone 
for, 665, 687; ground stone for, 856, 914, 922, 
927, 967, 980, 988, 989, 1078; ornaments for, 
1131, 1143, 1147, 1150-57, 1183 

Pueblo II, ceramics for, 49, 50, 65, 153, 161; 
chipped stone for, 597, 665, 698; ground stone 
for, 909, 921, 927, 980, 989, 1023, 1077, 
1085, 1086; reuse of kiva, 856; turquoise for, 
792, and other ornaments, 1131, 1184 

Pueblo II Corrugated, 147; defining, 245-49; 
variables for, (flare) 168, 180, 195, (orifice) 
177, (fillet) 177, (orifice to rim) 180, (surface) 
198, 200-202, and summarized, 181, 184, 187, 
188, 191, 195 

Pueblo II-III, 71 

Pueblo n-m Carbon-on-White, 406; defining, 377-83 

Pueblo II-III Corrugated, defining, 250-53; variables 
for, (flare) 168, 180, 195, (orifice) 177, (fillet) 
177, (orifice to rim) 180, (surface) 198, 200, 
202, and summarized, 181, 184, 187, 191, 195, 
204 

Pueblo II-III Mineral-on-White, defining, 352-58 

Pueblo III, ceramics for, 49, 71; chipped stone for, 
597, 665, 676, 679, 687, 698; ground stone 
for, 887, 890, 922, 989, 991, 1023, 1078, 
1080, 1085, 1086; ornaments for, 1131, 1168 

Pueblo III Corrugated, 123, 147; defining, 254-57; 
variables for, (flare) 168, 180, (orifice) 177, 
(fillet) 177, (orifice to rim) 180, (surface) 198, 
200, 202, and summarized, 182, 184, 187, 188, 
193, 195 

Pueblo IV, 676, 685, 993, 1087 

Pueblo IV-V, 694 

Pueblos, historic, 213-14 



Puerco Black-on-Red, 165, 416, 435 

Puerco Black-on-White, 70, 119, 144, 325, 384; 

defining, 289-305 
Puesga Black-on-White, defining, 325-33 
pukis, 156 

Purcell, David E., 153, 156 
Pvrene sp., 1153 
Pvrimidula sp., 1140 

quarries, 626, 1131 

quartz, a knife of, 1193; ornaments of, 1123, 1140, 
1143, 1177; red jaspery, 1123 

quartz crystal, engraving tool of, 1182; ornaments 
of, 1147, 1151, 1155, 1166, 1177 

quartzite, abraders of, 716, 753, 806, 819, 830, 845, 
909; arrow points of, 1193; as chipped stone 
material (lithic codes 4000-4005), 541, 545, 
553, 556, 625, 644; drills of, 1142; 
hammerstones of, 948, 949, 964-67; lightning 
stones of, 830, 882; manos of, 999; ornaments 
from, 1123, 1150, 1177; review of use of, 1223 

Rabbit Ruin, 882, 988, 989, 990, 991, 1026, 1056, 

1060, 1066, 1090 
radiocarbon dates, 1139, 1150; carbon-fourteen 

dates, 1131 
Rappoport, Roy A., 215 
Ravine Site, 1184 
Red Mesa Black-on-White, 44, 69, 70, 119, 144, 

147, 325, 411, 859, 882; defining, 286-97; 

grayware associated with, 235 
Red Mesa Valley, 76, 77, 90, 94-95, 104, 105, 150, 

1152 
red minerals, 1121, 1122, 1140, 1141, 1152, 1155, 

1176, 1198, 1229; pigments from, 1149; red 

dog shale, 1122, 1184 reddle, 1121, 1122 
redistribution, 4, 601 
Redman, Charles, 155, 165 
redwares, 41-42, 68-70, 85, 89, 98, 101, 119, 132, 

135, 164, 165; defining, 38, 416-35; refiring, 

436 
Reed, Alan D., 1176 
Reed, Alan D., et al., 1084 
Reed, Alan D., Paul R. Nickens, and Signa L. 

Larralde, 1153 
Reed, ErikK., 694 
Reed, Lori Stephens, 306 
regionally, 532, 597, 1221; ceramic, 209-10, 214- 

15; chipped stone, 596-97, 601, 662, 675; 

ornament, 1176-91 



1252 Chaco Artifacts 



Reher, Charles A., 163 
Reid, J. Jefferson, 1087 
Reina, Ruben E., and Robert M. Hill, 67, 69, 155, 

163, 164, 211 
Reiter, Paul, 829 
Reiter, Winifred, 1149 
Renfrew, Colin, 151, 597 

Renfrew, Colin, J. E. Dixon, and J. B. Cann, 601 
Renwick, Rosalyn, 1227 
Reserve Black-on-White, 313, 325, 340 
Reserve Indented Corrugated, 441 
Reserve Smudged, 436 
reuse, ceramic, 22, 32, 156, 161, 934, 1176; chipped 

stone, 698, as arrow salvage, 675, by Navajo, 

679; retouched flakes, 589 
rhyolite, 1123 
Rice, Prudence M., 37, 49, 69, 152, 155, 162-64, 

173, 603 
Richert, Roland, 1199 
Ridgely, J. L., 626 
rims on ceramics, change through time for, 169, 

185-96; diameters of, 173-77; fillet widths for, 

166, 169, 173, 177; flare of, 166, 169, 170, 

173, 177, 195; orifice diameter and, 180; 

painting of, 38, 41, 49, 385 
Rinaldo, JohnB., 679 

Rinaldo, John B., and Elaine A. Bluhm, 441 
rings, 1163; bone, 1192; jet, 1122; mica, 1139; 

serpentine, 1139; trachyte, 1176 
Rio Grande Area, 209, 628, 694, 993, 1155 
Rio Puerco of the East, 90, 95, 628, 1184 
Rio Puerco of the West, 165 
roads, 9, 1176-91 passim; ceramics on, 49, 141, 

150-51, 164 
Roberts, Frank H. H., 41, 45, 49, 74, 175, 218, 

262, 278, 286, 298, 306, 313, 334, 384, 436, 

547, 596, 934, 991, 1014, 1016, 1023, 1053, 

1077, 1084, 1143, 1147, 1149-53, 1183, 1191 
Rohn, Arthur, 49, 50, 68, 166, 180, 254, 392, 705, 

707, 772, 773, 810, 830, 834, 1086 
Roney, John R., 150 
roof-fall, 573, 589, 856, 859, 1081 
rooms, round surface, 153 
Roseberry, William, 212 
Roswell, New Mexico, 676 
rubbing stones, 829 
Rye, Owen S., 84, 114, 115, 162 

SAS Institute, 185, 193 

St. Johns Polychrome, 49, 119, 156; defining, 434, 



435 

Saitta, Dean, 209 

Salmon Ruin, 2, 4; ceramics from, 70, 149, 151; 
chipped stone from, 603, 675, 694; grooved 
stone from, 993; metates from, 1024, 1025, 
1051, 1081, 1083; ornaments from, 1177, 1199 

Sambrito Brown, 441 

Samuels, Michael L., and Julio L. Betancourt, 162- 
63 

San Jose point, 1131 

San Juan Basin, 2, 4, 9; ceramic resources in the, 
73, 97, 98, 162, and redwares, 135, and 
trachyte, 149-52; geologic description of the, 
610, and stone resources, 597, 964, 1123, 
1130; goods movement in the, 214, 1221 

San Juan igneous temper, 128, 132, 135, 138, 141, 

143, 147 

San Juan Redware, 42, 85, 207, 416; import 
chronology and, 132, 135, 137, 141 

San Juan River, ceramics and the, 41, 75, 76, 100, 
132, 153, 165, 340; stone resources and the, 
603, 845, 964, 980, 990, 991, 1182, 1199 

San Juan Whiteware, 135, 141 

San Mateo Ruin, 1206 

San Ysidro, New Mexico, 505 

sandal lasts, 763, 772 

sandstone, ornaments of, 1143, 1150, 1176, 1177, 
1182, 1184, 1192, 1193; tools of, 948, 999, 
1029, 1033 

sandstone temper, 75, 76, 87-90, 96, 98, 110, 138, 

144, 166, 175, 184, 187, 191, 200; chalcedonic 
cement, 90, 94-96, 97, 135, 137, 139, 147; 
magnetic, 98-99; with trachyte, 104-5 

Sandstone Black-on-Red, 416 

Sanostee Black-on-Red, 435 

Sanostee Red-on-Orange, 165, 416 

Sanostee Wash, 156 

Santa Clara Pottery Today . LeFree, 819 

Santa Fe, New Mexico, 659 

satin spar, 1140 

Saucier, Alva E., 90, 94, 95, 626 

Sayodneeche, 1140 

Scheick, Cherie, 1143 

Schelberg, John D., 12, 206, 596, 603, 999, 1001, 

1023, 1024, 1065, 1176, 1207, 1231 
Schiffer, Michael Brian, et al., 206, 239 
schist, 1122, 1123, 1140, 1150, 1177 
Schmader, Matthew F., 1155, 1229 
School of American Research, 95, 104 
Schutt, Jeanne A., 643, 541 



Index 1253 



Scott, Glenn R., Robert B. O'Sullivan, and David L. 
Weide, 77, 610 

scrapers, 156, 161, 564, 573, 592 

scraping, 152 

seasonality, 164, 207, 596, 1155, 1230-31 

Sebastian, Lynne, 1, 69, 161, 208, 214, 1153, 1176, 
1207, 1231 

seed jar, 58, 68 

selenite, as abrasive, 1227; confused with shaved 
mica, 1122; ornaments from, 1139, 1143, 
1153, 1166, 1177, 1191, 1198, 1199 

Senter, Donovan, 1078 

serpentine, 1140, 1141, 1150, 1177 

Sessions, Steven E., 1139 

settlement patterns, 1229 

Shabik'eshchee Site/Village, 3; ceramics at, 44, 75, 
76, 99; chipped stone at, 547, 596; ground 
stone at, 845, 854, 934, 991; mealing bins at, 
1016, 1053, and metates, 1026, 1066, 1077, 
1103; ornaments at, 1143, 1147-49, 1150, 1151 

Shackley, M. S., 628 

shale, 1122, 1138, 1142, 1151, 1152, 1162, 1176, 
1177, 1182, 1191, 1199 

Shannon-Weaver index, 143 

Sheep Camp Shelter, 1139 

Sheep Springs Gray, 230 

shell, 1131; identification of, 1120, 1123, 1207; 
inlay with, 882; offerings of, 1149, 1168; 
ornaments of, 1138-40, 1152-53, 1155, 1162- 
63, 1166, 1170, 1176-77, 1183-84, 1191-93, 
1199 

Shelley, Phillip H., 543, 603, 675, 1024, 1025, 
1051, 1081, 1083, 1182, 1228 

Shepard, Anna O., 74, 77, 79, 84, 103, 114, 118, 
127, 129, 152, 153, 156, 165, 392 

sherds, kiva reuse of, 934; scrapers from, 156, 161; 
temper with ground, 41-43, 79, 84-89, 94, 95, 
101, 104, 105, 114, 129, 144, 162 

shield, 1198 

shifts, cultural, 205-6, 694, 1227-28 

Shiprock, New Mexico, 1199 

shoe-form vessel (duck pot), 69 

Showlow Smudged, 436 

shrines, 887, 1163, 1166, 1168, 1176 

Shumway Pueblo, 1199, 1207, 1229 

siderite, 1123 

Siemers, C. T., and N. R. King, 610 

Sigleo, Anne M. C, 1123, 1184 

silicified wood, 541, 543, 625, 991, 1123. See also 
petrified wood 



siltstone, 1122, 1177, 1192 

Silver City, New Mexico, 205 

Simmons, Alan H., 541, 1139 

Singer, B. S., and A. M. Kudo, 628 

Sisson, Edward B., 69 

Site 264, ornament from, 1152 

Site 499, Mesa Verde, 1085 

Siverts, Henning, 212, 213 

Skunk Springs, 2, 149-52, 156 

slab cover, 707 

slate, 1122, 1153, 1155, 1177, 1183 

slip, 41, 49, 135, 152, 340, 416, 434 

slipslop, 384 

small-sites/small-house sites, 4, 9, 144, 553; 

ceramics from, 68, 138-44; chipped stone from, 

553, 573, 602; ground stone from 914. See 

also greathouse-small site comparisons 
Smartt, Richard, 1120 
Smith, C. T., 626 
Smith, Clay T., 90, 94 
Smith, G. A., 628, 629 
Smith, G. A., and A. Levine, 629 
Smith, Larry N., 76 

Smith, R. L., R. A. Bailey, and C. S. Ross, 629 
Smith, Watson, 163, 392 
Smith Lake, New Mexico, 90 
Smithsonian Institution, 660, 1165 
smudged ware, 135. See also Polished Smudged 
Snaketown, 993, 1130 
soapstone, 1147 
social organization, 152, 165, 205-14, 964, 1017, 

1024, and status, 165, 1140, 1176, 1182, 

1205-7, 1231 
Socorro Black-on-White, 110, 325, 340 
Socorro temper, 110 
sooting, 162, 218 

Sosi Black-on-White, 298, 377, 384, 406 
Sosi decorative style, 385, 417 
"Source Area Studies of Pueblo I-III Pottery of 

Chaco Canyon, 1976-1977," Warren, 75 
Spadefoot Toad Site. See 29SJ629 
Spaulding, A. C, 950 
specialization, ceramic, 164, 173, 181, 206-14; 

chipped stone, 603; ornament, 1162, 1176, 

1205; reviewed, 1227 
Spell, T. L., and T. M. Harrison, 628 
Spell, T. L., P. R. Kyle, and J. Becker, 628 
Speth, J. D., 966 
splintery silicified wood (lithic codes 1109, 1110), 

541, 545, 553, 556, 581, 643, 652 



1254 Chaco Artifacts 



Spondylus sp.. 1153, 1155, 1162 

squash pot. See tecomate 

staining, 796, 799, 887, 1142 

standardization. See specialization 

Standing Rock, 150 

Stark, Barbara L., 153, 155, 202, 207, 209 

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Nie, 950 

steatite, 1199 

Sterling Site, 1182-83 

Stevenson, Matilda Coxe, 208 

Steward, Julian H., 1153 

sticks, ceremonial, 1193 

Stix, J., F. Goff, M. P. Gorton, G. Heiken, and S. 

R. Garcia, 628 
Stoltman, James B., 119, 149 
stone circles, 4, 725 
stone tablets, 772 
strand dividers, 1141, 1184 
striations, ornament with, 1147; tools with, 819, 988, 

989, 1003, 1047, 1060 
Strombus sp., 1162 
submarine vessel, 70 
subsistence, 161 
Succinae, 1184 

Suhm, Dee Ann, and Alex Krieger, 679 
Sullivan, Alan P., 156, 161 
sulphur, 1150 
Sundt, William M., 110 

Swannack, Jervis D., Jr., 705, 810, 1020, 1085 
Swarthout, Jeanne, and Alan Dulaney, 210 
Swartz Ruin, 691 
Swift, Marilyn, 1199, 1207, 1229 
Switzer, Ronald R., 1184, 1191 

Tabeguache Cave, 1142 

Tainter, Joseph A., and David A. Gillio, 596 

talc, 1143, 1177 

Tallahogan Red, 435 

Talus Unit, 3, 660 

Taos Black-on-White, 325 

Taylor Black-on-White, 298, 306 

"Technological Studies of the Pottery of Chaco 

Canyon," Warren, 75 
tecomate, 58, 68, 175, 181, 218 
Tehuacan Valley, Mexico, 69 
temper, 76-78, 162, 169, 185-93; defining ceramics 

by, 41, 73-110, and a paste index, 114; 

defining imports by, 123, 127, 129, 138; 

density of, 85, 110; sandstone in, 85, 87-90, 

96-98, 138; sherds in, 22, 114; vessel function 



and, 175 

Texas, 679 

Thaden, R. E., E. S. Santos, and O. B. Raup, 628 

Theodore Black-on-White, 262, 270, 365, 370 

Thomas, D. H., 950 

Thomas, David H., 170 

Thompson, Raymond H., 164 

Three-C Site, 3, 660, 1077, 1157, 1163 

tinklers, 1184 

Titiev, Mischa, 1014 

Toadlena Black-on-White, 298, 306, 377, 384, 406 

Tocito Gray, 230 

Tohatchi, New Mexico, 1152 

Tohatchi Banded, 235 

Toll, H. Wolcott, 9, 17, 75, 76, 152, 185, 949, 
1006, 1231; mentioned, 69, 70, 141, 149, 155, 
156, 162, 164, 165, 193, 196, 200, 205, 210, 
214, 385, 596, 602, 603 

Toll, H. Wolcott, Eric Blinman, and C. Dean 
Wilson, 42, 209, 211, 334, 1231 

Toll, H. Wolcott, and Peter J. McKenna, 32, 43, 50, 
65, 68, 105, 109, 132, 149, 162, 165, 166, 
180, 182, 188, 202, 204, 210, 214, 235, 239, 
250, 286, 278, 298, 313, 325, 377, 411, 416, 
436, 601 

Toll, H. Wolcott, Mollie S. Toll, Marcia T. Newren, 
and William B. Gillespie, 161 

Toll, H. Wolcott, and C. Dean Wilson, 127 

Toll, H. Wolcott, Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J. 
McKenna, 49, 71, 117, 132, 138, 141, 184, 
193, 202, 204, 392, 1130, 1157, 1206 

Toll, Mollie S., 1024, 1065, 1224 

Tom Mathews Dig, 1053, 1079, 1103 

tools, ceramic producing, 155-56, 1226, 1228; corn- 
grinding, 755, 859, 1077, and whole metates, 
1027, 1055; crystal engraver, 1182; function 
related to material in, 1223-25; notch-tool, 
1068; review of tool kits, 1225-29; sawblade, 
1068; tools in situ, 856, 934; use-modification 
of, 954, 966-67, 1000, 1006. See also 
separately by type 

Torrence, Robin, 603 

Totah Area, 165, 392 

Toulouse, Mr., 808, 810 

Tourtellot, Gair, 601 

Toyah point, 679 

Trachydarcium sp. 1162 

trachyte, artifacts of, 629; ornaments of, 1176 

trachyte temper, 68, 75, 76, 101-10, 113, 117, 129, 
135, 137-39, 143, 147, 149-52, 166, 177, 180, 



Index 1255 



182, 184, 187, 191, 198, 200, 250, 370 

trade, evidence for, 601, 1147, 1155, 1170, 1205; 
exchange, 163-64, 215, 550, 561, 597; quality 
of product and, 153 

Transitional Black-on-White, 286 

transportation, ceramic, 164; chipped stone, 601 

Transwestern Pipeline Project (ENRON), 77, 105 

trash, artifacts in, 573, 580-82, 597, 1166 

travertine, 1120 

tree-ring dates, 882, 1086, 1141, 1142, 1183 

Trinkaus, Kathryn Maurer, 155 

Truell, Marcia L., 9, 144, 153, 164, 532, 580, 602, 
685, 890, 909, 922, 966, 977, 980, 1003, 
1143, 1149-51, 1157, 1162, 1166, 1184, 1191, 
1204, 1224-30 passim 

Tseahatso Cave, 1152 

Tsegi Canyon, 1141 

Tsegi Orangeware, 42, 47, 85, 137; defining, 416, 
434, 435 

Tseh So, 3, 763, 772, 796, 823, 1053, 1078, 1121 

tube beads, 1 147 

tufa, ornaments from, 1140, (inlay) 1199, (pendant) 
1199 

Tunicha Black-on-White, 278, 286, 411 

Turitella sp.. 1153 

turquoise, 163, 596, 691, 733, 792, 854, 882, 914, 
921, (in kiva) 934, (in pithouse) 934; mining, 
1204; offerings of, 1149, 1163, 1165, 1168, 
1170; ornaments of, 1143, (beads) 1147, 1176, 
1182-83, 1193, 1198, (chunk) 1155, (pendants) 
1143, 1151-53, 1176-77, 1183-84, 1191, 1199, 
(pieces) 1151-52, 1155, 1162, 1170, 1184, 
1191-92, 1199, and reviewed, 1205-6; sources 
for, 1120, 1123, 1130 

Tusayan Black-on-Red, 416 

Tusayan Black-on-White, 392 

Tusayan Carbon-on-White, 137 

Tusayan Ceramic Series, 41, 119 

Tusayan Corrugated, 245, 250, 254 

Tusayan Polychrome, 434 

Tusayan temper, 110 

Tusayan Whiteware, 41, 119, 137, 392; defining, 
402-15; import chronology and, 141, 143, 147; 
temper in, 99, 110 

29Mcl84, mention of, 1151 

29SJ116, chipped stone from, 685; ornament from, 
1150; mention of, 1131 

29SJ126, ornaments from, 1138, 1139; mention of, 
1131 

29SJ299, ceramics at, 87, 132, 156, for BMIII, 94, 



97, 98, 262-63, for PI, 76, 88, 90, 91; ground 
stone and, 845, 856, 922, 1017, 1026, 1040, 
1045, 1066, 1103; ornaments and, 1143, 1147- 
49, 1150, 1157 

29SJ387. See Pueblo Bonito 

29SJ389. See Pueblo Alto 

29SJ390. See Rabbit Ruin 

29SJ391. See Una Vida 

29SJ392 (Kin Nahasbas), 1, 3, 991, 1162, 1163 

29SJ393. See Kin Kletso 

29SJ394. See Tseh So 

29SJ395. See Be 51 

29SJ396 (Ignorance Hollow), 1078 

29SJ398, milling tools at, 1053, 1079 

29SJ399, (Tom Mathews Dig), milling tools at, 
1053, 1079, 1103; workshop at, 1170 

29SJ400 (Casa Sombreada), 1192 

29SJ423, artifact assemblages at, 592; ceramics and, 
94, 97, 106, 132, 135, 235, 262, 416, 435, 
441; chipped stone and, 545, 564, 585, 685; 
ground stone and, 845, 854, 887, 890, 921, 
922, 934, and metates, 1026, 1037, 1040, 
1066, 1103; ornaments and, 1143, 1147-49, 
1166; turquoise offerings at, 1165, 1168 

29SJ540 (Gallo Cliff Dwelling), 1017, 1192 

29SJ589. See Be 236 

29SJ625 (Three-C Site), 3, 660, 1077, 1157, 1163 

29SJ626, ceramics and, 75, 95, 153, 161; chipped 
stone and, 580, 582; ornaments and, 1120, 
1162 

29SJ627, ceramics at, 68, 70, 76, 95, 105, 113, 123, 
153, 166, 188, 191, 200, 201, 262, 411, 436, 
602, and import chronology, 132, 135, 137, 
139, 144; chipped stone at, 561, 573, 574, 580- 
82, 601, 602; ground stone at, 755, 757, 780, 
796, 808, 851, 859, 887, 890, 909, 948, 980, 
994, 997, 1006, and metates, 1026, 1053, 
1055, 1103; ornaments at, 1151, 1157, 1162, 
1165, 1170 

29SJ628, ceramics at, 76, 88, 90, 91, 98, 99, 101, 
129, 132, 262-63; ground stone at, 887, 909- 
14, 980, 989, 994, and metates, 1026, 1056, 
1103; ornaments at, 1150, 1157; review for, 
1229 

29SJ629, ceramics at, 68, 70, 94, 95, 106, 132, 135, 
147, 149, 188, 191, 200, 262, 384, 602; 
chipped stone at, 9, 573, 574, 580-82, 590, 
596, 691; ground stone at, 773, 780, 792, 847, 
882, 887, 909, 914-22, 967, 989, 1006, and 
metates, 1017, 1023, 1026, 1030, 1034, 1040, 



1256 Chaco Artifacts 



1045, 1051, 1053, 1055, 1056, 1060, 1089, 
1103; ornaments at, 1131, 1151, 1157, 1162, 
1163 

29SJ630, ceramics at, 75 

29SJ633. See Eleventh Hour Site 

29SJ721, ceramics at, 76, 88, 90, 91, 262; ground 
stone at, 922, 927, 989; ornaments at, 1166 

29SJ724, ceramics and, 76, 88, 90, 91, 114, 132, 
262, 435; chipped stone and, 580, 581; ground 
stone and, 921, 927, 967, 989, and metates, 
1026, 1033, 1034; ornaments and, 1151 

29SJ750 (Leyit Kin), 1042, 1077 

29SJ753, metates for, 1079 

29SJ827. See Be 362 

29SJ839, ceramics and chipped stone at, 603 

29SJ1118, mention of, 1131 

29SJ1156 (Atlatl Cave), 1131; beads and pictograph 
at, 1138 

29SJ1157 (Sleeping Dune/Ant Hill Dune), 1131, 
1138 

29SJ1337, mention of, 1122 

29SJ1360, ceramics at, 70, 75, 76, 94, 95, 97, 132, 
135, 147, 161, 188, 191, 200; chipped stone at, 
580-81, 589, 592; ground stone at, 851, 859, 
887, 927, 934, 967, 989, 997, and metates, 
1026, 1033, 1034, 1040, 1053, 1066, 1103; 
ornaments at, 1122, 1151, 1157, 1163, 1165, 
and craft area, 1162; macaw at, 1166 

29SJ1365, arrow points at, 679 

29SJ1613, chipped stone at, 679 

29SJ1657 (Half House), 1016, 1077, 1151 

29SJ1659. See Shabik'eshchee Village 

29SJ1678, ornament at, 1151 

29SJ1912 (Lizard House), metate at, 1079 

29SJ1922, metate at, 1079 

29SJ1947. See Pueblo del Arroyo 

Twin Angels Pueblo, 2, 151, 1184 

Twin Butte Site, Arizona, 1152, 1229 

Twin Trees Plain, 226 

uintahite, 1121 

Una Vida, 1, 3; chipped stone at, 531, 553, 580, 
660, 691; clay sources near, 472, 483, 485, 
487; ground stone at, 772, 823, 830, 851, 859, 
882-87, 922, and manos, 1006, and metates, 
1026, 1028, 1035, 1037, 1040, 1042, 1056, 
1060, 1103; metate matching for, 1017; 
ornaments at, 1157, 1166, 1168 

United States National Museum, 1082, 1149, 1165 

University of New Mexico, 1, 114, 118, 532, 660, 



705, 991, 1079 
Unpolished BMIII-PI Carbon-on-White, defining, 

365-69 
Unpolished BMIII-PI Mineral -on-White, 365; 

defining, 262-69 
Upham, Steadman, 165, 206, 208, 213, 214 
Upper Gila Smudged Corrugated, 436 
Upper Kin Klizhin, 151 
Utah, 132, 165, 547, 550, 676, 685, 1121, 1141, 

1153 
Utah-type metate, 1020 

variability, abraders and, 702-5; ceramic, 193-96; 

chipped stone, 553-57, 590, 592; hammerstone, 

948-49, 964-67 
Varner, Dudley M., 69 
Vazzana, M. E., 622, 625, 626 
vessel form and function, 165, 206, 209-11 
Vierra, B. J., et al., 628 
Vierra, Robert K., and Carl J. Phagan, 662 
Village of the Great Kivas, 2, 1084, 1191 
Vivian, R. Gordon, 74, 129, 278, 306, 334, 830, 

882, 1028, 1077, 1078, 1157, 1199 
Vivian, R. Gordon, and Tom W. Mathews, 74, 101, 

334, 384, 547, 553, 694, 705, 763, 780, 792, 

823, 991, 999, 1053, 1080, 1203 
Vivian, R. Gwinn, 1, 161, 162, 164, 679, 1037, 

1207, 1231 
Vivian, R. Gwinn, Dulce N. Dodgen, and Gayle H. 

Hartmann, 1226 
Voll, Charles B., 602 

Wallace, Laurel, 1153, 1182 

Wallace Ruin, 1177, 1192 

Warren, A. Helene, 12, 17, 74-84, 90, 94-112, 138, 

162, 539, 610, 622, 625, 626, 703, 948, 956, 

1120 
Warren, A. Helene, and Frances Joan Mathien, 

1130, 1204 
warrior, burial of the, 1198 
Washburn, Dorothy K, 69, 70, 286 
Washington Pass chert, 541, 545, 550, 553, 561, 

564, 596, 597, 601-4, 626, 640 
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1122 
wedges, 592 

Weigand, Phillip/Phil C, 156, 1130, 1162 
Weigand, Phil C, Garman Harbottle, and Edward V. 

Sayre, 11 
Wells, S. G., D. W. Love, and T. W. Gardner, 77 
Wells, S. G., and L. N. Smith, 76, 77 



Index 1257 



Wendorf, Fred, 1152, 1229 

Wepo Black-on-White, 286, 411 

Werito's Rincon, 922, 927 

Wetherill, Richard, 1026 

Wetherill Black-on-White, 402 

Whalley, Lucy, and Janice Yingst, 1182 

whetstones, 763, 792 

whistle, bone, 1142, 1184 

White Dog Cave, 1140, 1147 

white minerals, 1121, 1141, 1152, 1153, 1184, 1192, 
1198; confusion of shell with, 1120-21 

White Mound Black-on-White, 262, 270, 370 

White Mound Phase, 1152 

White Mountain Redware, 42, 85, 137, 165, 207; 
defining, 416, 434, 435 

whiteware, defining, 38, 40, 210, 262-364, and 
unidentified, 359-64; forms in, 49, 50, 52, 68- 
71, and volume, 73; paint on, 127-29, 205-6, 
and temper, 43, 44, 84-85, 88-89, 98, 101, 
107, 132-49; production of, 165-66, 207; roads 
with, 164. See also separately by type name 

Whitewater District, 1152, 1155 

Whitten, Penelope, 1151 

Whittlesey, Stephanie M., 416 

whole tools, 573. See also tools 

whole vessels, 71-73 

Wichita State University, 1122 

Wide Neckbanded, 123, 176-77, 184, 195, 198, 200; 
defining, 230-34 

Wijiji, 3, 97 

Wilcox, David R., 1, 49, 71, 208, 209, 213, 1230, 
1231 

Willard, M. E., and R. H. Weber, 629 

Wills, WirtH., 12, 114 

Wilson, C. Dean, 127, 132, 205, 226, 392, 441 

Wilson, C. Dean, and Eric Blinman, 38, 70, 129, 
153, 155, 161, 207 

Windes, Thomas C, 1, 9, 12, 32, 41, 49, 71, 75, 
162, 164, 216, 239, 245, 254, 278, 286, 306, 
313, 334, 370, 384, 402, 406, 411, 661, 679, 
725, 856, 887, 921, 927, 989-91, 1130, 1151, 
1166, 1168, 1170, 1176, 1205, 1222-31 passim; 
mentions, 17, 68, 69, 98, 113-19, 129, 132, 
156, 205, 210, 130, 541, 545, 580, 596, 602, 
780, 859, 882, 914, 977, 1143, 1150, 1157, 
1163, 1165 

Windes, Thomas C, and Catherine M. Cameron, 
597 

Windes, Thomas C. , and William Doleman, 14 



Windes, Thomas C, and Peter J. McKenna, 41, 313 

Window Rock, Arizona, 1152 

Wingate Black-on-Red, 416, 435 

Wingate Polychrome, 434, 435 

Winter, Joseph C, 603 

Wiseman, Regge N., 138, 163, 676 

Wiseman, Regge N., and J. Andrew Darling, 1130 

Wobst and Plog, 212 

Wolf, Eric R., 212 

Wolfman, D., 628 

wood, ornaments of, 1138, 1139, 1152 

Woodbury, Richard B., 541, 564, 676, 705, 758, 
772, 795, 801, 808, 823, 829, 830, 953, 977, 
999, 1001, 1013-17, 1152, 1226 

Woodruff Brown, 135, 441 

Woodruff Redware, 42, 135, 416, 435 

Woodruff Smudged, 436 

Woods, Janet, 1149, 1165 

Woodward and Timmer, 626 

woodworking, 801, 859, 988 

work areas, ceramic facilities, 153-56, 1182; chipped 
stone facilities, 543, 573, 592, 596, 603; 
pithouse, 856, 914, 927; workshop for metates, 
1081, 1083, for ornaments, 1120, 1150, 1162- 
63, 1165, 1170, 1182, 1204-5, 1207 

Yellow House, 1080 

yellow-brown spotted chert (lithic code 1072), 545, 

553, 597, 652 
yellow minerals, 1122, 1198 
Young, Lisa C, and Tammy Stone, 206, 239 
yucca, seed beads from, 1152; tool for preparing, 

773 

Zachary, J. C, Jr., 1123 

zapatojos (duck pot), 69 

Zedefio, Maria Nieves, et al., 77, 99, 102, 103, 105, 

123, 132, 210 
Zedefio, Maria Nieves, and Barbara J. Mills, 123 
Zuni, New Mexico, 1191 
Zuni Area, 254, 733 
Zuni chert (lithic code 1072), 541; as jasper, 626, 

640 
Zuni Mountains, 76, 77, 626, 640 
Zuni Pueblo, 208, 1163 
Zuni-Rio Grande dicotamy, 1143 
Zuni wood (lithic codes 1160, 1161), 541, 545, 553, 

596, 652 



List of Contributors 



Akins, Nancy J. 

Office of Archaeological Studies 

Museum of New Mexico 

P.O. Box 2087 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-2087 

Bradley, Bruce A. 
Primitive Tech. Enterprises 
P.O. Box 534 
Cortez, CO 81321 

Breternitz, Cory D. 
Soil Systems, Inc. 
1121 N. 2nd Street 
Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Cameron, Catherine M. 
Department of Anthropology 
University of Colorado 
Boulder, CO 80309 

Lekson, Stephen H. 
University Museum 
Department of Anthropology 
University of Colorado 
Boulder, CO 80309 



Love, David W. 

New Mexico Bureau of 

Mines and Mineral Research 
Socorro, NM 87801 

Mathien, Frances Joan 
National Park Service 
P.O. Box 728 
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0728 

McKenna, Peter J. 
205 Tornasol Lane NE 
Albuquerque, NM 87113 

Schelberg, John D. 
630 Solar Road NW 
Albuquerque, NM 87107 

Toll, H. Wolcott 

Office of Archaeological Studies 

Museum of New Mexico 

P.O. Box 2087 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-2087 

Wills, Wirt H. 
Department of Anthropology 
University of New Mexico 
Albuquerque, NM 87131 



PUBLICATIONS IN ARCHEOLOGY 
Chaco Canyon Studies 

(Published as of 1997) 



18A Archeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico by Alden C. Hayes, David M. 
Brugge, and W. James Judge. 1981 

18B Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, by Stephen H. Lekson. 1984 

18C Tsegai: An Archeological Ethnohistory of the Chaco Region, by David M. Brugge. 1986 

18D Small Site Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, by Peter J. McKenna and Marcia 
L. Truell. 1986 

18E Environment and Subsistence of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, edited by Frances Joan 
Mathien. 1985 

18F Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975-1979. 3 

Volumes by Thomas C. Windes. 1987 

18G Ceramics, Lithics, and Ornaments of the Prehistoric People of Chaco Canyon, edited by 
Frances Joan Mathien. 1997 



• U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 997-575-852/6506 1 



Clemson University 



3 1604 



2 019 834 



Microfiche 



The color microfiche is not included with this report. 
Duplicates of the material can be obtained in color on 8 1/2 x 
1 1 sheets through: 

Technical Information Center 
Denver Service Center 
National Park Service 
P.O. Box 25287 
12795 W. Alameda Parkway 
Denver, CO 802225 



Please call (303) 969-2130 for current costs prior to ordering.